TWA884

I am sure that you are aware that pseudoephedrine is used in the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine.

In 2006, Congress enacted legislation restricting purchases of pseudoephedrine by individuals to 3.6 grams a day and 9 grams in a 30 days period.

Most states maintain databases to track purchases of products containing pseudoephedrine and block sales in excess of those limits.

bocastephen

Yes, but I don't care. Why should I be inconvenienced and tracked because people cannot control themselves?

ArizonaGuy

^

We are punished - we can no longer purchase a useful product freely without interference or government tracking due to legislation that doesn't particularly solve anything. (The drug producer finds another way to do business, the drug addict finds another way to score and neither ends up on trial or given the help needed.)

Wish the justice system could work a little faster so thread tangents could be minimized.

TWA884

It is not people who cannot control themselves. It is the government restricting the availability of a key ingredient in the manufacture of an illegal drug.

An alternative would be to require doctors' prescriptions to purchase medications containing pseudoephedrine. Tracking purchases is a much lesser burden.

bocastephen

People cannot control themselves, hence they start using a drug they should never have gone near in the first place. Their foolhardy addiction is not my problem.

Let the government go after the manufacturers of the drug and leave my Sudafed alone!

DevilDog438

My apologies for continuing down this OT rabbit-hole (this will be my last post in the Sudafed OT trail).

Yes, I do realize that, thanks very much for the condescension. Personally, I have taken plenty of meth-heads to the hospital as a result of their addiction and the behaviors espoused when high as a fracking kite on the crap.

This is an intrusive tracking mechanism, which, IMO, goes too far. If it is that damn vital, declare it a Schedule II/III and require prescriptions. Warrantless tracking of people who are not active suspects in a criminal investigation is another symptom of government overstepping its defined boundaries.

bdschobel

I had to prove my identity just yesterday when I showed up for a medical procedure. I suppose that guards against insurance fraud and protects the doctor against inadvertent malpractice. Anyway, I didn't object at all.

I have never had to present an ID to get a prescription filled -- not even prescriptions for family members of the other gender. No questions asked, basically. I probably wouldn't object in that case, either, because it serves a legitimate purpose: stopping strangers from stealing other people's prescriptions, for one thing.

The TSA's ID checks are meaningless. Anyway, when the government does something, it's more restricted than when private parties do the same thing. Our Constitution says so.

Bruce

TXagogo

Just last week I had to show my ID to fill a schedule III prescription written by my doctor. I also have to show ID to buy pseudoephedrine. It is absolutely insane. I was against the regulations when they started and I am against them now. I am tired of being "tracked" because the government thinks it is helping us. If someone is a meth head, put them in treatment or put them in jail. The onus should not be placed on honest citizens that are just trying to live their lives.

PTravel

Federal law requires the presentation of an ID for schedule III medication. Various state and federal laws regulate the sale of pseudoephedrine.

Any other ID requirement, either on the part of a doctor or pharmacist, are merely the business policy of the particular practitioner and have absolutely nothing to do with whether TSA and/or a LEO can demand production of an ID at an airport as a condition of travel.

michelle227

and as we get off topic even further, the amounts they restrict us to also tend to preclude the purchase of two boxes at one time. Really sucks for those of us that like to keep some at home and at the office plus a small section of a box in the vehicle...

Obviously the legislatures never had members who were allergy sufferers or they would realize the restrictions to such low numbers is stupid.

Ari

Switch pharmacies.

You want to double check that assertion with the CSA?

PTravel

Not really. If it's wrong, it's wrong. The point is that what a private business does has nothing to do with what a state actor does.

Ari

It is wrong. I'm just surprised that you would state something as legal fact without any basis in the law whatsoever.

bdschobel

Yup. You can always patronize another pharmacy. You can't choose another government. We have only one.

Bruce

Ari

We were supposed to have 50 choices, but the unchecked expansion of the powers of the federal government make your post a reality.