Badmovies.org Forum

some people (http://blog.mises.org/archives/007583.asp)  really  strongly resent the federal government getting involved in this manner.  As some of you may know, in many states you have to sign some sort of thingy to buy sudafed.  this is because of the pseudoephedrine, which meth users boil down or something to make the drug.  This has led not only to alot of drug use, but accidents and explosions as well.


      In my opinion, the measure is a sensible one.  Others aren't so sure.  Has anyone had to sign any sort of form when buying this previously non descript over the counter drug?

My wife and I were talking about this just the other night.  I think this is a good example of the vast, huge majority being 'punished' for the crimes of the few.  IMO, we have way, way too much of this sort of thing, made all the more frustrating by the simple fact that it has not curtailed meth cooking one iota.

I'd be interested in seeing if this measure has actually reduced meth use at all.  If not, I'd say it's a completely useless measure.  And I have a feeling it probably hasn't.

That's the way it always is with anything having to do with the government - they try something, it doesn't work, there's never any thought given to stopping it. 

In Oregon we have it worse, you have to have a script to get any of the good stuff.   Meth is a dreadful thing, my wife is in child welfare and most oftheir problems seem to be meth related.  But most of the meth these days in imported from other places.  So I'm not convinced that this is actually helping.  Ona local level it does shut down all the "cooks" who are the scum of this and parallel earths, so maybe theres something there. 
-Ed

I don't think I've seen it with Sudafed but there have been spurts where ID was required to buy some over the counter drugs in my area.

Funny thing this comes up too.  I'm fighting off a cold but I'm giving Zicam a trial so see if their bragging about reducing colds is true.

Last year my dad had to go get something similar to sudafed at the store, and you had to get this slip, then take it the pharamic counter then show your id and then sign this forms and stuff.  My dad told me it was like you were buying something from Toys R Us, well at least the way it used to be. 

ASimpson-  is it particularly hard to buy things from toy r us?


everyone-  thank you for your responses.  Personally, I don't buy stuff beyond the odd bottle of tylenol very often so it's not an inconvenience for me and I assumed it was a well intended effort.  But as the thread i linked and this one indicate, people have varying, often negative opinions about this action. 

also shows how easy it is to dismiss people as fascists or conspiracy theorists for having a slightly different opinion!

No it's not hard to buy from Toy's R Us, but I remember in the past you had to get a slip, then pay for it then go some where else and get the item you purchased.

That's just at the one grocery store near my house.  I know with Rite-Aid they just swipe your drivers license.

I'm kinda torn on this one. Meth is a really bad problem around here. Not as bad as it had been a few years ago,but bad. I don't know what it takes to buy it here,as I usually eat alot of horse radish for colds and stuffy noses-and take steaming hot showers helps too. But the paper work and goverment intrusions into every day lives has gotton waaaaaaay outta hand in EVERY aspect of life. It needs to STOP. America is slooowly moving toward a tolitarian state.

Here in Arkansas it's the law that anything with psuedoephedrine in it has to be behind the counter and you must show your drivers license and your personal info is recorded when you buy it.

I think that all this has done is drive the production to Mexico and Canada.

Farmers here also have a problem with meth maker stealing liquid ammonia from them. I don't know exactly what farmers do with it, but they keep tanks out in their fields.

Fertilizer, I believe. 

Correct, it's called anhydrous ammonia (it's also a commercial refrigerant), we buy 1000's of gallons of it and spray on the fields and you have to keep an eye on it or it will be stolen by the meth-heads, not all of it but a enough to noticed to cost you a few $100. I find that if you keep it fenced on with a couple of Rottweiler's it's pretty safe.

This is what it can do your skin if it gets on you.
I'm linking the image as it my be graphic to some ...
http://www.mappsd.org/anhydrous-ammonia-affect.jpg (http://www.mappsd.org/anhydrous-ammonia-affect.jpg)


But as far as Sudafed goes, I understand it but I don't get it. You don't have to sign to buy matches (with the red heads) there used in meth, you don't have to sign for Drano, it's used in meth, you don't have to sign  for brake fluid, used in meth and butane, hydrochloric acid, ether, iodine or lye all used in making meth and all fairly easy to get. Why don't you need to sign for those too.
I mean I don't care if you need to sign for any of it, but it seems silly to me that you only make one part hard to get when the rest can be bought at most farm stores. Frankly, I have NO IDEA why you'd want to put this crap in your body. I know chemicals fairly well and this is some mean stuff and to put it in your body is just nuts!
 

I think this is a stupid idea. The idea was a logical one but a dumb one. All this does in shut down the local production. You could still ship the stuff in from out of state/country. And anybody cooking up this stuff with half a brain probably knows other way to get the stuff. So all the goverment is doing is annoying them and p**sing off everybody else. While alienating themselves in the process.

To answer this, you have to understand the drug production/distribution culture. I have worked in the drug enforcement end of law enforcement off and on since 1985, sometimes in rather fun places like Miami, FL.

Local production vs. shipping it in:  Well, that's what makes methamphetamine SOOOOOO very different from other hard drugs, such as cocaine and heroin.  With cocaine (and crack), it is NOT produced locally, so enforcement has a "hook" into the system; you can tap the distribution network.  That's really who the enforcement agencies target for the most part, anyway - the distributors and smugglers. 

Meth is a COMPLETELY different animal.  It is mostly produced 'locally' and often only for the cook and a few of his close friends.  A large distribution network of growers, refiners, smugglers, traffickers and multi-level dealers simply does not exist.  The meth labs are highly portable, and if there is ANY planning and foresight by the cook, not much external signature.  In my present home state, we see them often in motel rooms at the beach, sometimes only having discovery after the cook has left that particular site.

Further, there are many ways to cook meth; chemically, it is actually dirt simple to make with numerous synthetic pathways.  The method that uses pseudoephedrine as an ingredient is the so-called "Nazi Method," but others exist.  As Cheez mentioned there are many common chemicals that can be used in the various pathways, and to attempt 'control' by regulation of pseudoephedrine is absolutely stupid on its face.

The whole thing boils down to what is often called "symbolism over substance."  If the production of methamphetamine via the Nazi Method was somehow completely curtailed by regulation of OTC pseudoephedrine (which I think is a pipe dream), there would still be just as much meth being cooked; the cooks would simply re-adopt one of the other pathways (the Nazi Method did not come into vogue among the meth cooks until a few years ago, long AFTER meth become a popular drug).

This, like so much else the government does, is more hot air for campaign speeches (and to justify money spent/tax increases) than anything else.  I say we should keep this sort of thing in mind at voting time; what really is the RETURN on all those campaign promises?

Peace out.

Exactly: this is one of those ploys that are intended and designed to be 'visible' to the public.  Hard to ignore, cheaper to implement and it achieves its purpose quite well: the inconvenience makes the public notice that 'something' is being done - aware that 'action has been taken'.  Woohoo.  :lookingup:

Too often the substance gets lost in the p.r.  And will we really get good statistics on the 'return'?  Not holding my breath on that.

Sounds like one of those government programs that does as much at stopping meth production  as being forced to take your shoes off at the airport stops terrorism.

 :teddyr:

Good one.  Karma!!

The laws are stupid. You will NEVER curtail anything...only make it a bigger money situation for all involved. The big time drug dealers will start paying big money to drug stores or truckers to deliver the goods via black market,making it a big money biz instead of the moonshine operation it is.
 Legalizing meth won't help. We're not talking pot here,or even herion. Pot makes you goofy. Herion makes you  a vegtable. Meth turns you into a high strung,violent,paronoid idiot. It's DANGEROUS. And the makers need to be s**t canned HARD.

All it is is the illusion of the government that they are taking care of something when they aren't at all. Typical.

the more I ask people about this, the more and more clear it is that i underestimated the general hostility to this policy. 


as my olders ister said " they treat you like a criminal even if it is for the kids and the other stuff doesn't work!"

not exactly a ringing endorsement of this seemingly innocous component of the drug war.

Perhaps it is my cynicism showing again, but I doubt there is any component to the current drug war that is innocuous.

The whole thing is now premised on making money for the law enforcement agencies.  The siezure laws have ensured that.  If foolproof, inarguable evidence were discovered tomorrow that society would greatly benefit from halting all drug enforcement, it would not happen.  The city, county and federal governments will probably never let that cash cow die.

As I think about it, it is an interesting form of income redistribution.  Users of all walks of life funnel money to the dealers who in turn get it to the smugglers/producers.  The LEA's come in and sieze assets so that once-private money is now part of the public trough. And the whole time all this is going on, the politicians get to scream "we did something, we siezed 20 million in drug assets this past year."

Okay, sorry.  I'll stop now.

i have allergic asthma,so during allergy season i take product called bronk-aid.this contains REAL,not psuedo,ephedrine.how come it's still on the shelf?actually,that can be said for most asthma meds,they are on the shelf,but allergy meds are behind the counter,even though the primary ingredient is a form of ephedrine.so,what,the drug cookers don't know this?or is it the enforcers who don't know it?or,is it a way to keep the drug trade going?an intriguing thought....

I don't usually by Sudafed or medications like that because I don't have a need for them.  But I did hear something about this a while back.

One day I got such a bad head cold, I couldn't function, so I bought some to see if it worked.  It dried my head out so badly, I couldn't swallow  *lol*

When I checked the packet, it said it doesn't have pseudoephedrine in it anymore, but something similar that can't be used for meth production.  Not being a chemist, I don't know if that's actually true.  But I did get a grilling from the pharmacist and he asked me all these questions, which I don't remember now.  And it was insanely expensive as well.

After that, I decided I wasn't going to take the drug any more and I'd just tough it out with hot tea and aspirin.

I think it's smacks of overkill by the govt though.  Taking these measures won't stop the determined drug chef.  But I'm not sure what measures could be taken to ensure the genuinely sick get what they need.  Legalisation with govt control? Doctor's prescriptions? Showing up sick at the pharmacy?

It's a tricky one for sure.