Protectionism and My Stuffy Nose
There I stood at the pharmacy counter, with a head cold, sniffing away, and begging for some product that contains Pseudoephedrine, which works like a magic nose unclogger. The stuff you can get off the shelf now contains the similar-sounding drug called Phenylephrine, but it might as well be a placebo. It just doesn't work, and most everyone knows this.
You can still get the good old stuff from the pharmacist but you will be suspected for this grave action. The government, you see, says that people have been buying the old stuff and turning it into methamphetamine. This is why Congress and the administration passed the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005, which rations the amount you can buy and requires that you prove your identity and sign a special form.
And, yes, this act is now part of the monstrosity called the Patriot Act. I went over this whole subject last year, but this year, I really began to smell a rat, about which more below.
"Thanks Bush" I muttered as I signed the form under the glare of the pharmacist who has been trained to treat me like a possible criminal. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (68)
Art
I went through this bogus security theater production to get my Sudafed. I just put a big fat X on the signature line. The woman making me do this says "Is that really your signature?" and I replied "As far as you know, it is." She then demanded to see my ID again and I just said "Nope," took my package and left.
Remember when this sort of stuff was thrust in our faces as the reason the Soviet Union was such an awful place?
Published: December 26, 2007 12:36 PM
honkey
Hey, just a minor correction: John Gilbride is a DEA agent, and William Fousse is the guy who got arrested.
Published: December 26, 2007 1:00 PM
jeffrey
Thank you. fixed.
Published: December 26, 2007 1:05 PM
vlad popovic
If you read their press release, DEA's math does not add up: 406 pills X .025g = 10.15g total, not 29g. This is about 1g over the state-imposed limit, not 3 times the limit. Is it unpatriotic to say I am equally skeptical of their oft-quoted "street values"?
If nothing else, a 10.15g federal drug bust is a good sign that DEA has no big fish left to catch, the drug war is won, and the time is right for a nice funding cut. Who's with me?
Published: December 26, 2007 2:15 PM
lester
at least it has possible positive effects and some sort of logic to it, namley people not being able to make crystal meth. Most of these laws you have no idea even what the motive is. like that lady from iceland getting detained by homeland security. are we trying to keep out blonde tourists for some reason?
plus they still let you buy it. you being made to "feel like a criminal " or some kid making meth at his house seems to be a small sacrafise for humanity's sake.
Published: December 26, 2007 2:52 PM
Kevin B
lester: "plus they still let you buy it."
Oh, thank you, thank you, Master, for allowing us to have a bit of what was ours to begin with.
"...a small sacrafise for humanity's sake."
Your wish to sacrifice for the greater good is my command.
Published: December 26, 2007 3:08 PM
lester
boo hoo. you have to be asked a question or two to make sure you arne't making drugs to give to kids. you'll live
Published: December 26, 2007 4:50 PM
Travis
"Post an intelligent and civil comment."
Published: December 26, 2007 5:12 PM
jeff
But the whole point of my article is to demonstrate that the near-banning of the drug has nothing to do kids or meth. RTFA
Published: December 26, 2007 5:54 PM
Teri Pittman
You'd be healthier without it. The government has done stuff like this for years (including the ongoing fight to make it extremely difficult to get vitamins.) They banned iodine back in the 60s and you had to sign to buy that. But since there was no Bush or Patriot Act involved, I guess you missed that one. Oh, and while you're looking into stuff like this, try and sort out exactly why it is that we can't buy raw (unpasteurized) milk. It's illegal even if you are willing to take any risks involved.
Published: December 26, 2007 6:00 PM
Robert M.
Anyone know where I can get some crystalized iodine? I've been looking everywhere.
Published: December 26, 2007 6:22 PM
Joe P.
You seem to be overlooking the fact that phenylephrine is off patent and that BI would not see a terribly great benefit from selling it as an active ingredient. Frankly, the only reason they'd spend that kind of money lobbying is either to keep an OTC product from being taken off the market (like Ephedra was) or they have some new drug they want approved as part of the Medicare pharmacy benefit.
Crystallized iodine plus ammonia can make an explosive, I'm not surprised it's gotten hard to find. As to the original question about Meth, it may not be a big deal where you are, sir, but in the Midwest it's been a bigger problem than crack for at least ten years.
Published: December 26, 2007 6:32 PM
David G
There was a valid reason to ban pseudoephedrine; the problem was that it didn't ban every form of it (it's either bubble-packed tablets or powder or something that's exempt). The meth producers can still easily get the precursors they need, but citizens can't get their Sudafed, Claritin, or Mucinex. It's too bad. The same thing happened with the DXM-based cough syrups--it's difficult to find them. DXM is a far better anti-tussive (anti coughing agent) than the nasty tasting thing they add to syrups now. It's all in the name of preventing people from getting high. It's better that people feel more terrible while sick than people get high in their own homes. This is the policy of our lovely government.
Published: December 26, 2007 6:36 PM
Kevin B
It's always paraded as "for the kids," isn't it?
"War against poverty," for the kids.
"War against drugs," for the kids.
"War against terror," for the kids.
War against freedom, for the kids.
If only these kids knew what power they wield over us adults. Little kings and queens, they could all be, over most servants willing. That is, if it ever really were for the kids.
Published: December 26, 2007 6:57 PM
George Gaskell
"plus they still let you buy it."
Where in the Constitution is the federal government granted the power to control substances? To prevent intoxication?
When they banned alcohol, they at least had the decency to pass an amendment. Then repealed it later on.
Now, when busy-body tin-pot dictators like lester want to control our lives and our substances, they just do it, the Constitution be damned.
Published: December 26, 2007 7:18 PM
Pj
You are using standard Conspiracy think. There lots of stupid things going on in the US in the name of "the War on Terror", but this is not one of them. This is simply a method to reduce the volume of Meth (we call it "P") on the street. The method does work and you can still get your drippy nose drier if you sign for it.
As far as lobbying is concerned, once it became clear that pseudoephedrine was going top be restricted, the manufacturer of the alternative of course bumps its lobbying. It makes sense. So please start addressing the real issues. Like many other people I avoid travelling to the US due to the obnoxious security restrictions.
Published: December 26, 2007 9:36 PM
severin
I remember the good old days when you could buy 5,000 white crosses (ephedrine) in full strength from the back of the national enquirer. The world was not about to end, in fact at that time crack was the concern and not speed. Meth is so demonized and for the most part all of what the government says about meth are either lies, or a direct result of it being illegal (like meth labs exploding).
Published: December 26, 2007 9:36 PM
Graham
This Frontline piece on the Meth Epidemic is worth a watch. It had a strong impact on me, and I think Frontline's a pretty good and reasonable news program.
I'd have to agree that phenylephrine has got to be dirt cheap--it's old, generic, and anesthesiologists use it like candy in the OR, so it's certainly produced in huge quantities.
I'd also have to argue that sudafed does little to nothing for "health." It may help your symptoms, and improve your quality of life while you have a cold, but I haven't seen any data to suggest it does anything more than that. (Not to say that not having a stuffy nose isn't a good thing, but the "health" argument seems like a stretch to me.) Other products are out there as well to help with your symptoms.
Published: December 26, 2007 9:57 PM
Aaron M
I got to the grocery store (Safeway) and buy Sudafed Extreme Cold (which contains Pseudoephedrine) right off the shelf. I've never had to sign for anything. It's always right there next to all the other cold products. I've never had a problem buying it in California, Connecticut or Michigan. Weird
Published: December 26, 2007 10:20 PM
Matt C
I'm going to assume you've never lived in a state with a serious meth problem. I spent 4 years living in rural Iowa, and home meth labs were a HUGE issue - Not only because they produced drugs, but because of the public safety issue. Meth labs blow up more often than you might think.
In fact, before your supposed-Patriot Act federal law was passed, states such as Iowa (which already had strict laws regarding the sale of pseudoephedrine) had to get the feds to insert language that allowed their stricter laws to remain valid. Can you find the conspiracy link between those state laws and the sale of psuedoephedrine?
(And for the record, I am no proponent of the drug war. In fact, meth is one of the few drugs that I believe should remain illegal.)
Published: December 26, 2007 11:18 PM
Allen B
I have to agree with the last comment....if you haven't lived in a state with a serious meth problem, then you don't understand the need for the extra measures. Sure, the large-scale drug manufacturers will find other sources for their precursors, but it's the home meth labs that this will stop.
When a house is used for a lab, EVERYTHING has to be REPLACED (not cleaned, but trashed). Flooring, walls, appliances, furniture, etc. All gone. The kids get a free ride to child services too.
Published: December 27, 2007 12:39 AM
Mickey Kawick
Most of these types of drugs are readily available over the counter in Canada. In fact, a lot of drugs that are strictly controlled and that require a prescription in the US are available for cheap purchase at London Drugs or Shoppers.
Canada is simply a more free nation and I can say that as a former Texan.
Published: December 27, 2007 1:25 AM
Aaron Fritsch
I did some research on the campaign contributions...
From http://www.fecwatch.org/pacs/pacgot.asp?strID=C00420398&Cycle=2008,
Blackburn, Marsha (R-TN) $500
Blunt, Roy (R-MO) $3,500
Burgess, Michael (R-TX) $500
Buyer, Steve (R-IN) $1,000
Cantor, Eric (R-VA) $2,500
Clyburn, James E (D-SC) $500
Crowley, Joseph (D-NY) $2,500
Dent, Charles Wieder (R-PA) $250
Hulshof, Kenny (R-MO) $1,000
Jones, Stephanie Tubbs (D-OH) $500
Kirk, Mark (R-IL) $250
Murphy, Chris (D-CT) $500
Pallone, Frank Jr (D-NJ) $2,000
Porter, Jon (R-NV) $500
Pryce, Deborah (R-OH) $1,000
Shays, Christopher (R-CT) $1,500
Tiberi, Patrick J (R-OH) $1,500
Unfortunately (in terms of specifics) this was a small portion of a much larger amendment to the Patriot Act, so specifically connecting Boehringer Ingelheim's contributions to an "aye" vote for the act might be a bit shaky...however...based on the information found here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2005-414, of the people Boehringer Ingelheim made contributions to, only Crowley, Jones, and Pallone voted "nay". They are, coincidentally, the only democrats on the contribution list (Chris Murphy did not vote on the act). I wasn't able to find any information on which candidates in 2005 were given contributions...information in that regard would make for much better conclusions.
And in response to Joe P...
Phenylephrine is definitely not under patent anymore, BUT:
"[T]he world's largest producer of phenylephrine - Boehringer-Ingelheim of Germany - says it can boost production capacity for the substitute ingredient by enough so the entire U.S. supply of pseudoephedrine could be replaced by 2006."
(From http://www.newsregister.com/news/story.cfm?story_no=195651)
So indeed, BI would have quite the vested interest.
Hope this is helpful, or at least interesting =)
Published: December 27, 2007 2:50 AM
David
Hm. this is eerily familiar. Looking back at history, the 1920s/30s crackdown on marijuana was done in conjunction with the repeal of prohibition, and no doubt wascalculated to avoid the need to lay off the thousands of prohibition agents and bureaucrats under Harry Anslinger.
Was it just coincidence that the ban effectively assured the timber/pulp industry ( largely in the WR Hearst stable) of absolutely no competition from hemp fibre? Forgive my paranoia, but I think not. Barring a brief carve-out during WW2 due to rope shortages, swiftly closed again as soon as the crisis had passed, it has remained illegal to grow hemp fibre ever since, not even cultivars that have no appreciable amount of the psychoactive ingredient!
PS: from the nose congestion point of view, I have long steered clear of pseudoephedrine-based remedies, because their CNS side effects are so discomfiting, and their clearing effect makes some people prone to falling into a proto-addiction cycle ( indefinite use required to maintain a clear nose, even after the cold has passed). And extended use can also lead to more persistent and serious problems further back in the sinus cavities.
but there are cortisone-based nasal sprays available these days that perform amazingly well ............
Published: December 27, 2007 4:06 AM
Bignumone
A buddy of mine, who is always seeing some conspiracy, directed me to this blog.
I noticed you comment that you are treated like a criminal when you buy Mucinex. I just bought a great big thing of Mucinex and I was not asked a single question. So what the heck are you talking about? In fact, the active ingredient in Mucinex is dextromethorphan hydrobromide. Do YOU even know what you are talking about?
Additionally, why would Pfizer (manufactures and sells Sudofed) care about BI's bottom line if they can buy pseudoephedrine cheaper than manufacturing phenylephrine? I worked for them in the past, and believe me they really don't care if BI is making money as long as they are.
I think there are some really good comments here, and then some bone-head slamming them and whining because they don't have "intelligent" or "civil" comments.
I agree with Lester, Teri and Joe. They have the most intelligent comments in here.
Finally, in regards to your comment about how we are forced to use an inferior product.
About a decade ago, I was fishing in Canada and head a slight head cold. Not wanting to spend a week in the wilderness suffering, I stopped in Wawa to get some Sudofed. I was informed that the active ingredient was not the same, you could not buy pseudoephedrine in Canada anymore (by law or not, it was phenylephrine). Guess what? IT WORKED GREAT! I came back to America wishing I could get the other. I never thought to ask a pharmacist, but that is beside the point. It worked, it was not available in Canada, and they didn't have any patriot act there.
You claim not to be a conspiracy theorist, but man, if it quacks like a duck...
Published: December 27, 2007 7:18 AM
Linds
Thanks, Mr. Tucker for a very interesting article.
--------------------
I'd like to echo Joe P.'s point about phenylephrine being off-patent. But, I might also say that a generic manufacturer could potentially see substantial financial benefit from manufacturing active ingredients (at least for some time). Reliance on Chinese manufacturers is growing here in the U.S., but still slighted due to justified safety and quality concerns. The major generics manufacturers in the U.S. are not producing phenylephrine. BI remains a top supplier. I also have not looked at the changes in margin of top products from Pfizer (sudafed) and other manufacturers as a result of this legislative change (might be interesting). If an exclusive supply arrangement exists with BI, the Pfizers of pharma are still paying BI a significant amount for this supply.
---------------------
Also, I think it's important to consider that this legislation originated on a state-by-state basis.
--------------
Also, the meth problems in the Midwest are real. Yet it still aggravates me when I have to fork over an ID for some decent OTC cold meds. I recently moved to a new area and have had some on/off sinus problems...I riffled thru the listings to find a doc and got in with one who definitely a pill pusher...gave me a ton of free allegra-D and a script for enough for one year (he was a general pract. and I've never been diagnosed with allergies) My point here is that if someone really wants pseudophedrine, there are multiple ways to obtain it.
Published: December 27, 2007 7:29 AM
George Gaskell
Boy, the Sudafed really brings out the statists, huh?
I am disappointed (although not at all surprised) by the knee-jerk pro-state reactions by our newest commenters. It is nearly incomprehensible to me that their automatic and invariable reaction to any supposed "problem" is more state interference and control.
Meth is a HUGE problem! Oh noes!!1!11!1!! THey explode!!!!!
I'm sorry. No, it's not. How many people are killed or maimed by cars each and every year on government-built roads driving government-regulated cars? Answer: About 40,000 deaths, and millions of serious injures. How, pray tell, Matt and Allen, does that compare to the rash of meth-lab explosions that are apparently rocking the Iowa countryside?
Do you not have any perspective? Do you not SEE how you are being manipulated?
Published: December 27, 2007 7:53 AM
lester
the author was right, I hadn;t read the full article. but i went back and read it and my opinion hasnt changed.
If there were an anrachist state, I think the law regulating the sudafed stuff would still be largely unchallenged. No one wants to enhance anything, they just want to dodge a bullet aimed for them and their community.
Published: December 27, 2007 10:17 AM
anonymous
Why don't you go to the burn unit at a trauma center or visit the kids in CPS custody because their parents were cooking dope and tell your sob story to them?
If I have to go to the pharmacy counter and show ID to keep just one child from possibly being burnt alive, well then it's worth it.
Published: December 27, 2007 10:20 AM
Ron
I'm with George on this one, and it's interesting how our anti-statist, pro-liberty viewpoint somehow brands us as heartless, cruel, and evil. We obviously care nothing about children if we don't support any measure taken by the state to restrict our liberty for their sake.
It's a shame that people have to suffer in order to learn the lesson that cooking up drugs at home is inherently dangerous. It's an even bigger shame that sometimes children have to suffer because their parents make poor choices. But the biggest shame is that some people see no way to deal with these issues other than to use the coercive power of the state to label responsible citizens as potential criminals in order to protect us from ourselves. Private action is never considered. If you feel so strongly about the problems caused by the production and/or use of meth, do something about it yourself. Get involved in your community and do what you feel you must within your sphere of influence to convince others to refrain from engaging in an activity that might get them or their children blown up. But don't expect the rest of society to bear the costs of the bad decisions of a few individuals.
Here again is the classic case of what is seen and what is not seen. The "benefit" you see is that it will be harder for home meth manufacturers to get their hands on a key ingredient, and a few children may be spared the pain of losing their parents in an explosion. What is not seen (or cared about) are the costs associated with state action, and they range much further than just a few people not being able to get a hold of an effective sniffle remedy...it further erodes individual liberty and responsibility and brings us that much closer to a totalitarian society.
Published: December 27, 2007 10:45 AM
Scott D
I live in Missouri (hint: most meth lab seizures in the country from 2002 to 2004). I do not understand the need for extra measures.
Meth Lab explosions are not so common as you may think. In 2032, nationwide, there were 529 meth lab fires or explosions. Source
Meth use is probably much lower than you think (from the same source): "Just over 5% of those aged 12 and over in the US have ever tried methamphetamine, and that approximately 0.3% of the population has used methamphetamine in the past month. In comparison, 40.6% were reported to have tried marijuana in their lifetimes and 6.2% of the population were estimated to have tried marijuana in the past month; 14.7% of the population were reported to have ever tried cocaine and 1.0% were past month users"
If you are going to happily hand over your freedoms to the government in exchange for the promise of safeguarding your kids for you, at least understand the (in)significance of the problem. Oh, one final interesting number to throw at you:
"NDTS 2003 data show that 31.6 percent of state and local law enforcement agencies nationwide identified methamphetamine as the drug that most contributes to violent crime in their area, ranking second to cocaine (50.1%)....Agencies in the Pacific region were more likely to identify methamphetamine as the drug that most contributes to both violent crime (86.3%), and property crime (80.2%) than were agencies in any other region."
We all know how these statistics are used by politicians and law enforcement. Their message is, "See, we need to crack down harder on meth dealers and users. Meth use causes crime." In fact, the cure they prescribe is actually the cause of the crime. The more risk involved in manufacturing, selling, and using the drug, the more desperate addicts will be to acquire it and the greater the incentive for drug dealers to provide it.
In other words, at the risk of making these horrible drugs available to the small segment of the population who may abuse them (3% seems to be the consistent number for frequent drug users), we would see a dramatic reduction in violent crime.
Published: December 27, 2007 10:46 AM
Shawn McBee
Mr. Tucker,
I agree with the majority of this article, especially as someone with a chronically stuffy nose. There was something a bit misleading there, though. When you refer to "the stuffy-nosed William Fousse," it implies that Mr. Fousse is an innocent victim of a bad policy; an implication that someone would take with them if they didn't click through to the linked article.
If you read the article, it states that he was purchasing the product from four different pharmacies, the total purchase being more than three times the legal limit. This does not sound like the behavior of a man with a stuffy nose. Looking at my box of Sudafed here, if you were to take them as directed (not more than 4 doses daily--which is more than I ever need, even with my chronic stuffy nose), then the most you'd need in a month would be 240 caplets.
So, good article but please, you don't need to be misleading or presumptive about the sinus-status of a man buying copious amounts of pseudoephedrine.
After all, if you're taking the pills as directed, you'd be well under the 30 day legal limit.
Published: December 27, 2007 10:48 AM
Scott D
My html tag for that link in the above post seems to have fled the scene. Here it is:
http://www.drug-rehabs.org/articles.php?aid=459
Published: December 27, 2007 10:51 AM
severin
If meth were legal, 90% of the problems with meth would go away (illegal labs that are prone to exploding, unsafe ingreidents added, etc.). Much less the issues of needing to regulate cold medicines and the like.
Published: December 27, 2007 11:02 AM
Jim Emmel
What steams my clams is that people like me bought the product to get relief so we could work! The gov't always has to screw with the working class. We're taxed for unwanted nonsense so the least the gov't could do is let us work without sinus congestion. However, this inconvenience did help me find 2 very useful alternatives called SinusBuster pepper nasal spray & sinus rinsing with saltwater.
This like anything else: nothing gets done unless someone's getting paid.
Published: December 27, 2007 11:46 AM
IMHO
Treating a cold or allergies with an inferior product increases the likelihood of medical complications; i.e. sinus infections or bronchitis. This, of course, would then require a course of antibiotics.
Chalk up another victory for the pharmaceutical companies.
Published: December 27, 2007 1:53 PM
lester
severin- yuo are probably right.
ron- it's a deabte. I'm not saying anyone is heartless or cruel. It's just obvious why the law exists, regardless of the various elements described by the authors of certain entities benefiting from the law and so forth.
"What is not seen (or cared about) are the costs associated with state action, and they range much further than just a few people not being able to get a hold of an effective sniffle remedy...it further erodes individual liberty and responsibility and brings us that much closer to a totalitarian society."
no it doesn't. and again, even if there were no state this action would still probably have occured. the community would demand it
Published: December 27, 2007 2:40 PM
Scott D
Lester:
Yes it does. It is just that, from your perspective, the ends justify the means.
Remove the propaganda, misdirection and outright lies of the "War on Drugs" and then see if people are so willing to throw their rights away.
Published: December 27, 2007 3:39 PM
David
Very interesting example of one person's effort to "follow the money" and examine the motives behind a puzzling occurence. Good work, Jeffrey.
Also agree with Ron @ 10:45. Well said, Ron.
Published: December 27, 2007 4:11 PM
Gary
Lobbying for phenylephrine was nothing compared to 20 years of lobbying for pseudoephedrine products, which still make billions for pharmacutical companies. American drug companies fought restrictions against pseudoephedrine tooth and nail for two decades and finally they did the responsible thing and agreed to curb the distribution of pseudoephedrine, the main ingredient in methamphetamine, one of the most destructive drugs to society. The bill you are referring to is the Feinstein-Talent act. Diane Feinstein, a Democrat, has been at the forefront of trying to restrict pseudoephedrine. Restrictions against pseudoephedrine were mostly opposed by Republicans. Check the history and you'll see your conspiracy theory is a little backward.
And finally, so what if a company is lobbying for a product to replace pseudoephedrine? More power to them, and about time.
It is true phenylephrine is not a perfect replacement, which is why the FDA already is considering allowing a stronger dose. Give them a chance to let it work.
Published: December 27, 2007 8:57 PM
jeffrey
Gary, I'm sure you are right that my article doesn't begin to plumb the depths of corruption -- and that's what you get when you put government in charge of deciding such things. As for giving them a chance, they've had all recorded history and still can't get it right.
Published: December 27, 2007 11:10 PM
Alan
Page 3 of this great article might give you some more insight.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/17438347/how_america_lost_the_war_on_drugs/3
Published: December 28, 2007 12:39 AM
Ron
Gary (et. al),
Let's examine how methamphetamine is "destructive to society"...
Let's say an individual or lots of individuals use meth. They get high, they make a lot of noise, maybe they break some stuff. If they break someone else's stuff, they are penalized for the breakage...as per usual...end of story. Punishment for breaking other peoples' stuff provides an incentive to not break other peoples' stuff. Yes, the drug may override that incentive, but it is the breaking of other peoples' stuff that should be punished...not the use of the drug. But I digress...
How, exactly, does that help destroy society? In itself, it doesn't. There will always be people who break or steal other peoples' stuff, but the responsibility lies with the person doing the breaking, not with the mood- or mind-altering chemical(s) that may have influenced their decisions.
The real, undeniable danger to society is always government's response to the perceived problem. Only government has the power to destroy society, as they hold all the tools and power to do so. Government can only destroy liberty and create conflict. The "war on drugs" is a perfect example of that.
As others have stated, the illegality of drugs is precisely what makes them so profitable, and thus makes people more willing to steal or kill to get them or the ingredients used to make them. If pharmaceutical companies were free to sell giant bricks of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine to meth manufacturers, the price of the drug would plummet, thereby reducing the incentive to manufacture it at home and eliminating most, if not all, of the violence associated with its manufacture and trade.
You may argue that there are other costs to society as well, in the form of treatment for addicts (funded by taxpayers), removal of children from drug-abusing parents (funded by taxpayers), or free medical treatment for those injured in meth lab explosions (funded by taxpayers). Do you see a pattern here?
I'm not advocating the use of drugs, by any means. I personally do not use them and never will, nor will anyone I care about as long as they are willing to listen to me. I firmly believe, though, that each individual, as the owner of his/her body, is free to do with it what he or she wants, so long as doing so does not infringe upon the rights of others. If it does, they should be held accountable.
Published: December 28, 2007 8:57 AM
lester
scott d- what's wrong with taking a totalitarian -esque approach to a problem? if it's a real problem.
Published: December 28, 2007 10:07 AM
Inquisitor
Well if you don't mind being coerced or coercing others, nothing I suppose. And if you don't mind the additional problems caused by and perverse results of totalitarianism, again nothing at all.
Published: December 28, 2007 10:24 AM
Ron
Lester: "what's wrong with taking a totalitarian -esque approach to a problem? if it's a real problem."
How much time do we have? I'll give you just one reason: In the case of any and all "social" problems, government is the least qualified entity to rely on for a solution. In reality, there are no "social" problems...there are only individual problems, and only the individual or those close to him/her have the necessary compassion, knowledge, and capacity to help effectively. Government is, by nature, one-size-fits-all, and the "solutions" offered by government nearly always exacerbate the problems they attempt to solve.
Published: December 28, 2007 10:25 AM
Richard Carpenter
It is hard for libertarians to imagine but it is true: some people ENJOY taking petty arbitrary orders, following them meekly, and hating those who do not. They accept at face value the old lie "It's for your own good." These people really do feel better being treated like children.
We need a free market solution for these people to get their warm and fuzzy feeling groveling to authority without making the rest of us do likewise.
Published: December 28, 2007 10:35 AM
Scott D
Lester, that is exactly the question that people were asking when the Bolsheviks took power in Russia in 1917. The Germans asked themselves that question when Hitler rose to power in the 1930s and the Chinese when Mao Zedong took control of China. The problems each of these societies faced seemed much more dire and insurmountable at the time, and the response was proportionally much greater, but gradual totalitarianism simply takes longer. Most people believe that they are being responsible citizens by giving up a little freedom for the greater good. Libertarians realize that freedom itself is the highest end to which we can aspire and more precious than any empty promise the government has ever made.
Tough measures succeed in inspiring confidence from the average citizen because most people respect force and authority. Few people respect the market, but those of us who have studied it realize its power. The thriving black market in drugs is itself proof of how efficient and resilient markets are. Even as government clumsily tries to knock it down, the drug trade only grows stronger and more pervasive. Do you realize that addiction rates in this country have remained at about the same level for the last hundred years?! How many billions of dollars have gone into the Drug War? What do we have to show for it?
Published: December 28, 2007 11:54 AM
Gary
We're not seriously comparing the Bolsheviks, Hitler and Mao with limits on how much decongestant we can buy in a month, are we?
And Jeffrey, when you say they've had all of recorded history to get it right and still can't, do you mean we -- our society, you and me, not "the government" that is so evil -- should just stop trying? At least they're doing something other than rounding up drug addicts, who need help and not prison.
As for the idea of just letting chemical companies manufacturer as much ephedrine and pseudoephedrine as they want because the prices will plummet to the point that they'd stop making it, history shows that's not the case. Those companies in fact did have complete freedom to sell ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, and in other countries they still do. It just made the drug cheaper and purer, especially in the 1980s and '90s when there were the least restrictions on it, and the result was a drug that quickly replaced alcohol and heroin as the top reason for rehab admissions on the west coast.
Of course drug use is an individual choice, but is it really in our best interest to wait until a crime is committed by a strung-out hallucinating tweaker and then deal with that crime only while ignoring the bigger problem? I've looked into crime history in my area and found that many of the most violent and senseless crimes in the past 20 years were meth-related. The tank hijacking in San Diego and the mother and father on death row for scalding a child to death are just two that come to mind. Seventy-five percent of identity theft in San Diego County is meth-related. This isn't beer and pot we're talking about.
If it were a question of just letting people do what they want with their own bodies, fine. If only it were that simple. But if your identity gets stolen by a tweaker (or your car gets run over by a tank) you might start thinking that a line has been crossed.
Published: December 28, 2007 1:16 PM
8
I don't like the law either, but I think what is really hard for libertarians to understand is that people prefer being asked to sign for Sudafed if it means stopping meth. I know the failures of the drug war, but most people could care less about the law. They don't like living around drug addicts. If the federal war on drugs was ended, they'd pass new laws at the state level.
Published: December 28, 2007 1:41 PM
lester
gary- in his defense, I posited the relatively broad question of "what is the matter with adopting totalitarian esque policies..."
8- thank you, that is a more concise version of what I was trying to say.
Published: December 28, 2007 2:24 PM
lester
ron- so what if stores started doing this voluntarily? then you'd have a bunch of maniacs outside the last store at 5 am waiting for it to open!
Published: December 28, 2007 2:26 PM
Ron
Lester: "so what if stores started doing this voluntarily?..."
Well, if the ingredients for meth were more readily available in bulk quantities there would be less "home cooking" going on, and thus lower demand for it in pill form at individual stores.
It's certainly possible that some stores would restrict the availability of (pseudo)ephedrine voluntarily. A community may put sufficient pressure on the local drugstore to enact some measure to do so, at which point the store's owner would have to make a choice between bending to the will of the community (his customers) or risk suffering loss of profits as people go elsewhere. In the end, however, it is the choice of the store owner, and no one has coerced him into a certain behavior. Government makes the choice impossible.
Published: December 28, 2007 2:49 PM
Ron
8,
It's not difficult for Libertarians to understand at all. The point is that one must look at the bigger picture and realize that restrictions on liberty always do more harm than good.
Published: December 28, 2007 2:54 PM
Michael A. Clem
I live in Oklahoma, and I don't see a big meth problem. Yes, there was plenty of media coverage for a while to hype the so-called meth crisis, but that's all it really is: hype.
Besides, if it's not one drug, it's another--a lot of the druggies I know (not that I know THAT many) prefer crack to meth.
The problem with restricting things like pseudophedrine is that government generally makes it harder for people to legitimately get what they need, but does little to stop people from illegally getting it. Plus the unintended consequences of such restrictions. It's certainly understandable that people don't want to put up with drug abusers, but the government prohibitions just don't do that good a job of stopping it. We'd be better off looking at the reasons normal people have a hard time avoiding the druggies, such as all the other restrictions that make it harder for normal people to live their lives as they choose: licensing (all forms), zoning, taxes, tax returns, discrimination laws, difficulties in starting and running businesses, etc, etc. Or for that matter, why don't we look at the drug abusers and figure out why they're so miserable that they turn to drugs in the first place? Especially since prohibition and punishment doesn't seem to stop them from doing drugs.
Published: December 28, 2007 3:12 PM
lester
ron- what if the store owners are PART of the community and want to run a regular store not a meth supermarket? and have their own children and property they want to protect
Published: December 28, 2007 3:44 PM
James Redford
Pj, you wrote:
""
You are using standard Conspiracy think.
""
Governments are the biggest promulgators of belief in conspiracies--witness all the laws against "conspiracy" and all the criminal charges of "conspiracy" brought against people. The offical U.S. government story regarding such events as, e.g., the Pearl Harbor attack, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and the 9/11 attacks, etc., are charges by the U.S. government of conspiracy having been conducted against it by other governments or by non-government terrorist groups.
A conspiracy is simply when two or more people take part in a plan which involves doing something unrightful or untoward to another person or other people (of which plan may or may not be kept secret, i.e., secrecy is not a necessary component for actions to be a conspiracy). This makes government itself the largest corporeal conspiracy to ever exist (given that it exists via a double-standard of doing unto others what it does not want done unto it), or that could ever exist.
Furthermore, conspiracies are ubiquitous (again, witness all the laws on the books against conspiracy, and how many people are routinely charged under said laws), and the most egregious perpetrators of murderously brutal conspiracies are governments upon their own innocent citizens. More than six times the amount of noncombatants have been systematically murdered for purely ideological reasons by their own governments within the past century than were killed in that same time-span from wars. From 1900 to 1923, various Turkish regimes murdered from 3.5 million to over 4.3 million of its own Armenians, Greeks, Nestorians, and other Christians. The Soviet government murdered over 61 million of its own noncombatant subjects. The communist Chinese government murdered over 76 million of it own subjects. And Germany murdered some 16 million of it own subjects in the past century. And that's only a sampling of governments mass-murdering their own noncombatant subjects within the past century. (The preceding figures are from Prof. Rudolph Joseph Rummel's website at http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ .)
All totaled, neither the private-sector crime which government is largely responsible for promoting and causing or even the wars committed by governments upon the subjects of other governments come anywhere close to the crimes government is directly responsible for committing against its own citizens--certainly not in amount of numbers. Without a doubt, the most dangerous presence to ever exist throughout history has always been the people's very own government.
Of course, all of these government mass-slaughters were conspiracies--massive conspiracies, at that.
Published: December 28, 2007 6:23 PM
Inquisitor
If someone commits a crime, you punish them for it. I do not see why people who consume drugs and do not commit crimes should be penalized for the activities of those who do. Preventive 'justice' has to be the biggest load of rubbish I've ever heard of.
Published: December 28, 2007 7:43 PM
Ron
Lester: "what if the store owners are PART of the community and want to run a regular store not a meth supermarket? and have their own children and property they want to protect"
Then the store owner is perfectly free and well within his right to do so. The point is that it's a voluntary action, undertaken by an individual with the freedom to choose based on his own set of values. No one has the right to force the store owner to modify his otherwise peaceful behavior, for any reason...not even government.
Published: December 30, 2007 10:30 PM
Uri DeYoung
Pseudoephedrine?
That's kids' stuff, man. The problem started when they made SKF take the Benzedrine inhaler off the market.
Man, that stuff really cleared your head!
Published: December 31, 2007 3:07 AM
Peter Glaskowsky
Sloppy, very sloppy.
The Boehringer Ingelheim spending figures are for "lobbying" not "contributions."
Lobbying tends to be more effective than contributions.
Tucker's text doesn't agree with the opensecrets.org graph; he seems to have skipped over the 2006 figure.
Plus, I'm pretty sure the 2007 figure isn't for a full year, so it's possibly wrong to say that spending declined this year.
If Tucker had gotten all of this right, it would have strengthened his argument.
But these are still pretty small numbers. Total spending per year on lobbying passed $2 billion a few years ago.
Just out of curiosity, I checked to see how much Pfizer (the maker of Sudafed) spent on lobbying during those years, and it was several times as much:
http://opensecrets.org/lobbyists/clientsum.asp?year=2005&txtname=Pfizer+Inc
So we know Tucker was about five seconds away from data that would have largely invalidated his argument. I wonder if he saw it but chose not to mention it.
From the comments we also see that while Boehringer Ingelheim makes phenylephrine, this compound is no longer under patent protection, so the financial benefit to Boehringer Ingelheim is no longer all that strong.
To address a couple of other points in the earlier comments, the explosive that can be made from ammonia and iodine is nitrogen triiodide. This material is so sensitive that it simply can't be used for any practical or criminal purpose.
Only Mucinex D contains pseudoephedrine. Mucinex and Mucinex DM do not. Tucker was sloppy here again.
There is no "Sudafed Extreme Cold" product. Sudafed Severe Cold does not contain pseudoephedrine. It has phenylephrine instead.
. png
Published: December 31, 2007 12:30 PM
jeffrey
Peter, nothing you said here refutes my facts or theory. I never said that phen was under patent. Dominant producers have incentive to lobby for restrictions even in their absence. All I claimed is that BI is the main beneficiary of the switch from pseudo to phen, and that in the year this occur, BI 's lobbying budget soared to new heights. Might there have been other reasons? Maybe. One reader suggested that maybe BI's lobbying ended up forestalling a complete ban on the product, which might also be true but I've not seen the evidence. I only reported the facts as I have them.
Published: December 31, 2007 2:04 PM
Scott D
Yes, we absolutely are. In each of these cases, freedom is restricted for the supposed greater good. That you set the problem aside so readily, without asking "at what cost?" shows that you possess the same blind faith that the people who supported those regimes possessed. Whether you give up 1% of your freedom a hundred times, or 100% of it one time, it is the same end result.
Feel free to convince a drug addict to go in for treatment, but don't put a gun to his head when you do it. Is that too much to ask?
What you describe is the trajectory of most illegal drugs, as producers find ways to make it more cheaply and increase its potency. That last factor is crucial, since the more potent the drug is, the smaller the quantity required for use and so the easier it is to hide. And use has remained steady since about 2002. Is there a "success" hidden somewhere in there?
Let's explore this a bit, shall we? Why does that "tweaker" go to the trouble to steal someone's identity? Is it because he/she is strung out and therefore a "bad" person? Or is it because the stuff requires so much money that, for most people, crime is the only means to acquire it? You rightly identify a problem, and then support a solution that has no bearing on the original problem, but heck, it's tough and uncompromising, so it's sure to work.
Published: January 2, 2008 12:45 PM
Ben Merritt
After reading over all of these comments the only conclusion I can personally come to is there are valid points for both sides presented here. However, as a Military Policeman stationed in Germany from 1975 till 1977 Amphetamine was legal to buy in any german "drugerie" (pardon my spelling, it's been a long time) 20 marks bought about 2 ounces of a clear liquid in a brown bottle. The germans I hung out with, one being the local dj at the local discotheque "Moby Dicks" right on the Neckar River asked me once why Americans used it so much? He said all his friends preferred "other things".
As a pretty naive 21 year old MP I told him "HelI ain't got a clue". (BTW Rheinhold spoke pretty good english.)
I'm 53 now but it sure makes any intelligent person wonder about human nature .....and telling them they can't have something.
Published: April 13, 2008 7:10 PM
brucely
Only the some drugs will be good. If some drugs we will taken in over dosage it will be very dangerous to our health. All the pharmacist will be first approved by government then only it will be released into market.
=========================
brucely
california dui
Published: September 8, 2008 5:17 PM
brucely
Only the some drugs will be good. If some drugs we will taken in over dosage it will be very dangerous to our health. All the pharmacist will be first approved by government then only it will be released into market.
=========================
brucely
california dui
Published: September 8, 2008 5:20 PM
Suffering Another Sinus Infection
Remember when you could walk into a store and grab 4 boxes of 48 120mg "today's health" or "great value" or any other store brand for $5 a box and be set for 3 months? Sure, it was no substitute for the mysteriously missing and highly effective phenylpropanolamine, but it was the only thing left that worked. $20 and you can avoid 50 antibiotic pills and a sinus surgery...good deal. Now most pharmacies here don't even carry pseudoephdrine, and those that do carry ineffective 30mg tablets for $1 each. For this you get on the DEA list, FBI list, probably have travel restrictions added to your FBI portfolio, and who knows what else? Aren't we proud to be Americans, where at least we know we're free? I feel bad for all the men and wome n who gave their blood only to be betrayed on a bipartisan basis. So this is going to prevent another 9/11? yay. I think I'd rather take my chances with the terrorists than go through this annual sinus surgery/agony. Do they stille have 120mg pseudophedrine in the middle east?
Published: February 5, 2009 12:28 PM
Car Accident Lawyer
Last time I was sick, it was such a pain in the butt to jump through all the hoops to get the medication I needed. Things are starting to get out of hand. Its just such an inconvenience for people to deal with when they are ill.
Published: October 17, 2009 9:48 PM