Guilty until proven innocent
I either have the cold from hell or a killer new allergy — I can’t decide which. In either case, I’ve been stuffed up and congested for a week now, so a few days ago I went to the store for some over the counter relief. The “legal” pills are a joke, so I stood in line at the pharmacy and asked for a box of Sudafed Sinus.
You’d think I’d requested heroin.
I had to hand over my driver’s license, from which they wrote my name, address, and license number in their book. I had to fill out the purchaser section, including my birth date. The pharmacist then wrote down the brand and number of pills I was buying. I was ready for the strip search order at any time.
All for a grand total of $3.69.
This song and dance is the product of a nifty little law that says because pseudoephedrine is used in the manufacture of meth, the medicine itself must be treated as a controlled substance. Ironically, making allergy sufferers jump through hoops doesn’t seem to have touched the meth trade in town a bit. Now they just order the drugs off the internet.
What’s next? Keeping baking soda behind the counter because it’s used to make crack?
How about a little common sense, legislature. When Sudafed is a crime, only criminals will have Sudafed. The rest of us will just keep on wheezing.
December 30th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
“What’s next? Keeping baking soda behind the counter because it’s used to make crack?”
I hate to tell you this, but it’s been considered:
Sales of cold medications containing pseudoephedrine, such as Sudafed, are strictly regulated in Missouri. Customers must show a photo ID when they buy the medicine. Pharmacists must log the names and addresses of buyers, including how much they buy. People under 18 may not buy the medicines.
The sponsor of the baking soda bill, Rep. Talibdin El-Amin, D-St. Louis, said the same approach was needed for baking soda because crack cocaine is often produced by dissolving powdered cocaine in a mixture of water and baking soda.
As someone wittier than I said, when baking is outlawed, only outlaws will get baked.
December 30th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
That’s wild, CG. I would say “Only in Missouri,” but WA would probably do the same thing if they thought of it.
December 31st, 2007 at 10:32 am
Why blame in on the legislature, Terry? Blame it on the useless scum that made it to where we would have to buy it that way–the meth heads! I got a den of them run out of my hood anyway. That’s what happens when move next to the buds of narc agents.
I had to give that same info when I got meds too, and they’ve quit carrying an epinephrine pill that I commonly used for my seasonal bronchial asthma. I had to go to the inhaler, which I wasn’t pleased about. Made me wanna go wipe the pavement with some meth addict.
January 1st, 2008 at 5:22 am
T.G.,
Blaming the meth addicts for “forcing” us to respond in a certain way is typical bully-logic: “Don’t make me hit you…” There are a lot of potential solutions to methamphetamine addiction and production which don’t involve criminalizing otherwise useful and largely benign ingredients. The interdiction/restriction model is clearly a failure: all our legislatures are stuck in that mode, though, and for that they are culpable.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:36 pm
I think the legislature went for a cheap and easy headline when they took pseudoephedrine off the market. It looks good on paper and does nothing. Meanwhile, they’ve not allocated extra funds for meth addiction treatment, something that might actually make a difference.
January 8th, 2008 at 10:49 am
For the record, I would hit them…