NYT/AP: Oregon to Require Prescriptions for Medications Linked to Meth

[DeepModem Mom]

Oregon to Require Prescriptions for Medications Linked to Meth
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: August 17, 2005


PORTLAND, Ore., Aug. 16 (AP) - Gov. Theodore R. Kulongoski signed legislation on Tuesday that would make Oregon the first state to require prescriptions for everyday cold and allergy medications that can be converted into methamphetamine.

The requirement applies to any medication containing pseudoephedrine, the crucial ingredient in methamphetamine.

Oregon and several other states already require consumers to show identification and sign a log when obtaining over-the-counter cold and allergy medicines like Sudafed and Claritin D from pharmacies, and Congress is moving toward similar restrictions.

Governor Kulongoski said he was aware that the law might cause inconvenience for allergy and cold sufferers but said that pharmaceutical companies already were producing replacement medications that did not contain pseudoephedrine and could not be converted to methamphetamine.

The bill sailed though both houses of the Legislature, opposed by only a handful of lawmakers who cited the inconvenience for their constituents....


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/health/17meth.html

[Raster]

1. whatever it takes. Meth is THE scourge. You want a war on drugs,

pick this drug. It does nothing but kill.

[Redstone]

34. Balls. This drug clears up clogged noses.

Redstone

[geoshelby]

62. The last time I took Sudafed

I remembered why they make meth out of it. The stuff really does a number on your head. I remember in High School kids were slamming whole bottles of cold medicine to get high.

I agree that laws don't always change the problem, but why are so many eager to defend unlimited access to cold drugs used to make a drug that causes peoples teeth to fall out, sometimes in MONTHS, when all our national government will do is support alcohol (go joe 6-pac) while calling Marijuana the most dangerous drug out there.

Nobody will argue that US drug control policy works, but we have to do something. Any other suggestions on what we can do?

[Raster]

64. Im not talking psuedo, Im talking meth. I live in what is termed

"methleham" in western Washington. Speed freaks bounce around our little burg like so many balls in pinball machines.

[geoshelby]

65. After reading all of the posts for this topic

I am starting to believe that meth isn't a problem outside of the west coast. Maybe, like I said before, people just don't "see" what is really going on.

[IA_Seth]

78. Iowa

Iowa had, until this law in Oregon passed, the toughest meth laws on the book (at least as far as ephederine went).

This wasn't because we are hard asses on cold medicines, its because meth has taken over the state (and much of the midwest) as THE chief drug problem.

[IA_Seth]

79. please delete

whoa, double post.

[mantis49]

81. It's horrible in the Midwest, too.

IL, MO, IA.

My brother is a deputy sheriff with K-9 training and has the Sherriff's department drug dog. He has more than enough work to keep him busy. 75% meth related. Small county in western IL.

[bleedingheart]

111. my cousin here in PA is in treatment for meth...lost all his teeth

and he is only 17 years old.

[I concur]

67. Despite my "handle"...

...I respectfully disagree! This is another (bad law) example of your liberties going down the tube.

[Parche]

91. Meth

I understand that meth is a problem here in Oregon
But a few bad apples means that you now need a
prescription to get Dayquil/Nyquil.....that is
not right.
Dayquil is the best when you have a cold, or
symptoms.
I agree we have to do something, but this is
very extreme.

[eeyore]

98. Way more than a few bad apples making up the problem.

I support Gov. Ted on this 100%. My wife works in crime prevention in Portland, and a huge amount of her time is taken up with meth related crime. Something in the neighborhood of 75% of theft and robbery in Portland is meth related. You must not live on the east side, because it is a major problem that needs to be dealt with.

Blame the drug companies for refusing to rework the make-up of their meds. It can be done, and they will see a large drop off in sales because of this. If this sort of law is what it takes to make them listen, then so be it.

I watched my brother get so whacked out on meth that he started stealing blank checks from my parents and writing them to himself. He was so gone that he had no forethought that they would figure it out, or just didn't care - he needed his fix.

-eeyore

[wli]

2. complete rubbish, we need to recall the legislators responsible n/t

[depakid]

14. Actually, this is popular in the state

and the legislators will be commended for actually doing something to help put the brakes on this scourge. This shit is just tearing apart communites all over Oregon.

[wli]

42. what on earth are you smoking?

The chemicals needed to actually carry out conversions of pseudoephedrine to methamphetamine are already regulated. The state (and country) need do no more than track THOSE chemicals, not make ordinary citizens miserable by taking away one of the very, very few effective cold remedies available OTC.

If this is "popular" in Oregon, it's time for me to leave the state, because the populace is too deluded to be anything but a dangerous demagogue-deluded mob.

[Waya]

3. Already done here in Ohio.....

...ever since last week you have to whip out your ID to buy Sudafed and other cold medicine at the drug store.

[Lars39]

4. Not just an ID, but a prescription is needed.

[Waya]

5. We aren't that far yet ....

..but I'm sure it's coming. An ID for Sudafed - ludicrous. And there is a limit of how much you can buy at one time.....

[genieroze]

73. They made me show ID to buy compressed air to clean my PC because

wackos are huffing it.

[BattyDem]

6. So now people will have to spend 80 bucks on an office visit ...

to buy a $4 box of Sudafed??? :eyes:

[HadItUpToHere]

38. when i need a prescription for something-

i CALL the dr. first, and can ALWAYS get a prescription without an office visit.

[Gelliebeans]

45. unless you are one of the 44 million

without health insurance or someone that doesn't have a family doctor to get a prescription to simply alleviate symptoms from a cold.

[BattyDem]

70. Many doctors won't do that

I have a couple of friends whose doctors never prescribe over the phone for any reason. My doc will prescribe over the phone as long as it's been less than three months since my last visit. Otherwise, I have to go see him.

[LostinVA]

92. Most doctors won't do that, unfortunately

Especially if you go to a big practice.

[Daphne08]

43. Oh, that's just unbelievable!

First they took my Drixoral Non-Drowsy off the shelves (I'd been taking it for years) and NOW they may make Claritin-D available only by prescription AGAIN?

I'm not in Oregon, but I imagine this idiocy will be nationwide soon!

As you wrote, WHY should we have to pay for a doctor visit ($75 here) for allergy medicine? I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous.

[saigon68]

47. Its a great way for Doctors to make money $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

From hotel maids making $5.15 an hour with no health insurance.

[HuckleB]

60. I don't know any doctors who support this legislation.

[area51]

52. "the law might cause inconvenience...."

It's a hell of a lot more than "inconvenience". As BattyDem said, "So now people will have to spend 80 bucks on an office visit to buy a $4 box of Sudafed?"

Truly, the republinazis want to make healthcare out of the reach of all but the wealthy. And if the authorities are so fscking worried about the "meth problem" in this country, why don't they (1) give us universal healthcare, and (2) build/staff a lot more drug addiction treatment clinics. :mad:

[HuckleB]

57. Alas, Dem legislators supported this en masse, and our Dem governor

signed it with pride.

[fortyfeetunder]

119. not to mention the gas prices on top of it....n/t

[Trillo]

7. I was just at Costco today,

psuedoephedrine hydrochloride was on the list. Pharmacist claimed that it was no longer being manufactured.

I remember back in the 70s that the generic movement was hailed by those trying to save a couple of dollars. Meds that contained multiple ingredients (brand name) often cost 4 times or more the amount buying the separate ingredients would cost.

At Costco today, there was some new, replacement OTC drug being offered, Sud...something, but it was mixed with a pain killer. It was not offered separately, and since I've never used it, I don't even know if it works as well, I'm NOT willing to buy it in the hope it might work well, especially since its mixed with a pain killer.

I'm really tired of being held responsible for other peoples actions, such as those who illegally manufacture methamphetamine.

But the doctors will love this. They get the money for an office visit, and since the mass OTC market has been wiped out for psuedoephedrine, the retail cost for it will rise.

The GREEDY are in charge.

[HuckleB]

13. Doctors fought this bill.

As did insurance companies and pharms.

Sometimes, even the "greedy" see the stupidity in legislation gone amuck.

[Trillo]

77. Did these folks fight it?

http://www.sanofi-aventis.us.nyud.net:8090/live/us/en/skins/mcl2005/images/skin_corpologo.gif http://www.aventis-us.com.nyud.net:8090/PIs/images/allegra_logo.gif

Rev. January 2005
ALLEGRA-D® 24 HOUR
(fexofenadine HCl 180 mg and
pseudoephedrine HCl 240 mg)
Extended-Release Tablets
http://www.aventis-us.com/PIs/allegrad24.pdf

According to drugstore.com, with sufficient money paid to a doctor for an office visit and the proper script in hand:
90 tablets $247.97 - save 17% ($51.06)


The last time I bought OTC pseudoephedrine, 60 mg tabs came in bottles of 100 for less than $5.00 (It was a few years ago, so it's "if I remember correctly") A current price is 100 - 60 mg tablets for $17.00

Comparing prices per mg of fexofenadine+pseudoephedrine and not including any doctor's charge:

$ 0.00656 per milligram

psudoephedrine only, no doctors charge required:

$ 0.002833 per milligram

Looks to me like there's a bit of a corporate monetary incentive to convince authoritarian controllers that OTC pseudoephedrine should be difficult for the public to buy or find.

Nah, we can't look to the lack of success of doctors fighting this bill as evidence of thier intent. Simply follow the money.

[HuckleB]

82. Again, PharmCo lobbyists, physicians etc... fought this bill.

I don't know how your post changes that in any way.

[Trillo]

88. In your prior post you wrote "pharms"

I interpreted that to mean pharmacies, not pharmaceutical manufacturers or "PharmCo lobbyists."

[HadItUpToHere]

39. what's the problem with pain killers?

personally, i like to kill the pain.

[Trillo]

44. In post #7 I wrote:

contained multiple ingredients (brand name) often cost 4 times or more the amount buying the separate ingredients would cost.

Besides that previously mentioned point, if the meds come with, say, acetometaphen instead of ibuprofen, or asprin, if I want to take a painkiller with it, which sometimes I don't, then the manufacturer will have made the decision for me. Unfortunately, I know which one of those three works best in my body, I've been living with it for a long time now. The manufacturer doesn't know that.

I've found that Tylenol is of practically no value whatsoever for pain in my body, though I know some people swear it works wonders for them. If I take something with Tylenol in it, and I also need to take asprin or ibuprofen for the pain because Tylenol doesn't work well for me, is it safe to max out on both pain killer dosages? Whether it is or not, it doesn't seem prudent to me. Therefore, taking a decongestant mixed with a pain killer I wouldn't choose, prevents me from taking an effective pain killer. Simply, the manufacturers chosen pain killer displaces another one.

Allergies are an odd thing, if there is no real pain such as a severe headache, why pay for an ingredient that isn't needed?

I can make these decisions for myself, but obviously, the controllers will no longer allow me to.

[HadItUpToHere]

84. Tylenol is useless for me as well.

aspirin or ibuprofen, depending on what hurts where, and why.
i also take strong prescription (opiate) painkillers for chronic pain- and i find that there is WAY too much phobia about painkillers in this society/country.

my prescription has to be written out by the dr. EVERY month- it can't be called in, and NO refills. and i've had pharmacists give me a hard time if i try to get the new month's prescription even 2 days earlier than the full month.

[LostinVA]

94. That's weird... it certainly is still being manufactured n/t

[Trillo]

120. Its just another manipulation of people.

It's not so weird when you consider that it represents a hierarchical distribution system. If High Plains Post #8 is any indication, there is no 'legal' reason for pseudoephedrine to be impossible for citizens to purchase.

The pharmacist was likely telling me a little white lie (which is quite common in the health care field) in order to avoid having to explain to me that corporate made the decision to stop carrying it in cooperation with some "interested parties" in the belief that prohibiting legal users of the medicine from buying pseudoephedrine and substituting the less effective (and more dangerous side effect prone) phenylephrine in similar sounding trade named products will reduce the amount of illegal drugs on the streets.

Perhaps its an "unofficial" type of compliance that merchants and other controllers use to "force" citizens in our so-called "free market" society. If the pharmacist knew this, perhaps he just wanted me to go away, so he claimed it wasn't being manufactured anymore, rather than to try to explain to me that the company he worked for was forcing an issue on citizens in ways not mandated by law. Perhaps the manufacturer that their pharmacy purchased from did make that decision and so informed the pharmacist.

The legislators get off the hook because they didn't change any laws in any way that restricts legitimate users of the medicine, the merchants simply stop carrying the product, and this affects masses of people due to the hierarchical distribution system. In a few years, people may forget their tyranny, at least until a tipping point is reached, but perhaps some will clamor to legislators about the ineffective products that are overpriced on the OTC market. Wealthy citizens will simply go to doctors for more effective medicines, but for those who can't afford the rising co-pays, or for the uninsured, then they will be left with less self-care options.

It's just another manipulation of people by liars.

[Trillo]

122. Retailers are in "voluntary cooperation" with the DEA.

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) sponsored the Pseudoephedrine Retailers’ Meeting in Arlington, Virginia, on February 28, 2003. The purpose of this meeting was to provide a forum for educating the industry regarding the latest pseudoephedrine diversion trends, regulations, and procedures governing the retail sales of pseudoephedrine containing products. Agenda items included: Methamphetamine Production and Abuse, Regulatory Issues and Pending Legislation, Voluntary Cooperation, and Industry Responsibilities. Twenty industry representatives and 10 representatives from industry associations attended the Pseudoephedrine Retailers’ Meeting.

Read more...

Edited to add:
If you read that article, Costco is mentioned near the bottom, though the information presented is now obviously out of date, either that or our local Costco didn't get the DEA memo and isn't following company policy.

[High Plains]

8. Look for Sudafed restrictions at the federal level as well

Among about a dozen anti-meth bills introduced this session is the Combat Meth Act, co-sponsored by Feinstein and Grassley, among others:

SEC. 104. PSEUDOEPHEDRINE AMENDMENTS TO CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT.

(a) Addition of Pseudoephedrine to Schedule V- Section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(6) Any detectable quantity of pseudoephedrine , its salts or optical isomers, or salts of optical isomers.'.

(b) Prescriptions- Section 309(c) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 829(c)) is amended--

(1) by inserting `(1)' before `No controlled substance'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(2) If the substance described in paragraph (6) of Schedule V of section 202 is dispensed, sold, or distributed in a pharmacy--

`(A) the substance shall be dispensed, sold, or distributed only by a licensed pharmacist or a licensed pharmacy technician; and

`(B) any person purchasing, receiving, or otherwise acquiring any such substance shall--

`(i) produce a photo identification showing the date of birth of such person; and

`(ii) sign a written log or receipt showing--

`(I) the date of the transaction;

`(II) the name of the person; and

`(III) the name and the amount of the substance purchased, received, or otherwise acquired.

`(3)(A) No person shall purchase, receive, or otherwise acquire more than 9 grams of the substance described in paragraph (6) of Schedule V of section 202 within any 30-day period.

[progressivebydesign]

25. My doctor told me that Sudafed and the like SHOULD be prescriptions..

he said that they are some of the most dangerous drugs OTC.

[neverforget]

9. Punishing all for the transgressions of a few.......

[HuffleClaw]

10. whats next ? prescriptions for kleenex ?

ok, this is just wrong. geeze. up here in canada we can buy tylenol 1's OTC. this 'war on drugs' is a money making scam and little else. doctors must be dancing in glee about this development.

[Megahurtz]

31. You're probably right. n/t

[LostinVA]

11. And what happens if you don't have medical insurance?

Hell, my copay is up to $20 now. I don't want to have to pay $20 for $4.99 worth of OTC. And for people who DON'T have insurance??? they can't go when they are crawling-across-the-floor sick...

Crystal meth is a huge problem, but this isn't the answer.

[HuckleB]

12. Then, you're screwed.

This is a dumb, feel good law, with no evidence to back up its costs. Basically, it's an unfunded mandate on the populace that will do nothing to solve the problem of meth addiction.

[depakid]

15. There are substitutes for psuedoephedrine

I may be wrong, but it's my understanding that this is the ingrediant that now requires a scrip. If not, then the law is overly broad.

[LostinVA]

17. But the alternatives DO NOT work for everyone

I've tried everything, and only psuedoephedrine comes close to relieving my pain... and it IS often pain for me.

[HuckleB]

20. Those "alternatives" provide little to no relief for many.

Nevermind that prohibition has never stopped an epidemic of drug abuse of any kind. This is feel good policy that does nothing to solve the actual problem, while causing hardship on thousands.

[SW FL Dem]

109. The alternatives are worthless

they don't work for me or my family. This bill is idiotic. It won't stop the production of meth, they will still hijack trucks and get it from Mexico. All the bill does is severely inconvenience allergy sufferers.

[HadItUpToHere]

35. call your doctor, and have them call in the scrip' to the pharmacy.

no office visit required, therefore no copay.

[Heddi]

40. And if you have no doctor, then you......

a) do without
b) do without
c) do without
d) do without
e) both a, b, c, and d are correct

Of course, you neglect the fact that if these medications are by prescription then they would cost more than they currently do on the shelves. But feh! Who cares! Why NOT pay $15 for a box of Sudafed that's Rx only when you could get the same box for $4 when it was OTC

[HadItUpToHere]

41. why do you assume they'll cost more as a prescription?

i would guess that the pharmacies would simply keep the already pre-packaged sudafed behind the pharmacy counter, and just sell the regular package at the regular price for people with the scrips.

and if you have no dr.- you should really try and get one- it's nice to have someone who holds onto your medical file, and can access it when necessary...btw- you don't need to have insurance to have a 'regular dr.'...and just because you have a regular dr., it doesn't mean that you have to go regularly. and it's not like you have to pay a dr. to keep them on 'retainer' or something.

[HuckleB]

53. Labor is added, for starters.

Processing scripts, tracking them, etc... costs time and money for both the pharmacy and the physician's office. That means many physician's will tire of simply "phoning in" prescriptions, as it is a drag on fiscal resources and pharms will recover their costs through higher prices.

[HadItUpToHere]

87. you're just guessing tho-

i'm willing to bet that if sudafed requires a prescription, the pharmacies will still just dispense the same already factory-prepackaged stuff that's out on the shelf in other states, and at pretty much the regular price.
if you KNOW different, then i'll admit i'm mistaken and just continue being thankful i'm not from oregon.

[HuckleB]

89. I'm not just guessing.

What they dispense has nothing to do with the paperwork that must be done between them, the docs and the insurance companies. All of that takes time and costs money. There's no guessing about it.

[HadItUpToHere]

106. how much are they charging?

since you seem to KNOW and aren't just guessing...?

[HuckleB]

113. Oh brother.

You and I both know the game you're playing. If you can't understand that added labor adds costs and will drive up the price, then it's not worth discussing this matter with you.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

[HadItUpToHere]

126. grocery stores sell milk for below cost ALL THE TIME-

it's called a loss-leader...the people who need sudafed are already going to be pissed off about the hoops they have to jump thru to get the script, so i REALLY don't believe that stores will jack-up the prices, further alienating and angering their customers.
they (the storesd)have no choice/control about the prescription requirement, and the consumers generally won't blame them for the hassles- but if they jack-up the price- they WILL be 'blamed', and risk losing customers to the walgreens across the street that DOESN'T jack up the prices.

[HuckleB]

132. Got any other comparisons that don't add up?

Pharmacies don't need loss leaders. They'll recoup the costs of business, as they always do. Some might try to make a profit on it that goes beyond that, but they'll all set prices where they need to be to pay for the costs. There's no basis in practice to even waste time going down the road you want to go.

[HadItUpToHere]

137. what makes you think you "know" what road i want to go down?

the same amazing powers of perception that make you "know" how much they'll charge?
Please tell me exactly how much the drugstores in oregon will charge for prescriptin sudafed, oh great and wise one, knower of all that is knowable...

:eyes:
sheesh...some people.

[mikeytherat]

61. CO-PAY

That's how it costs more -- CO-PAY. Even if I have a wonderful family physician I can call on a whim to get a scrip (which, as I am in an HMO, I do not), I'd still have a co-pay of $20 for something OTC. But, since I have to go to through the HMO first, I get to pay $45 for the office visit and then $20 for the prescription. $65 and a few hours of my time (plus the wait if I can't get a doctor's appointment for a day or two) for $4 of sudafed.

And what kind of doctor do you have that he or she will just call in prescriptions for you without any exam at all?

mikey_the_rat

[HadItUpToHere]

85. if the medication costs less than $20, why would there be a copay?

if the meds cost $4, why would there be a $20 co-pay on the prescription? you give the pharmacist the dr.'s prescription, and tell them you don't HAVE insurance if that's what it takes.

[Heddi]

93. The same reason that Rx meds less than $20 require a copay

I mean, some insurance companies allow sliding-scale Rx copays. Others don't.

Some antibiotics can cost $7 a month w/o insurance, but $20 if you have an insurance with a $20 copay.

And you still haven't answered the question I posed earlier. What do you do if you have to have a prescription for Sudafed, but you don't have insurance and don't have a doctor.

You're right that Dr's don't require 'retainers' to keep your records, but you must first be seen before you can even HAVE a medical record--and office visits cost money, you know.

If you don't have the money to see the doctor initially, then you're screwed.

If you had the $$ to see a doctor, but haven't had the money to see a Dr for the last 3 years, it doesn't matter whether you have insurance or not--they will REQUIRE you to come into the office for an exam before they write prescriptions.

My doctor, who I see on a regular basis, requires me to come into the office for ANY LITTLE THING. I had a UTI (urinary tract infection) and had to go in for a visit just so I could get an Rx for antibiotics. Thankfully, I have insurance so the office visit only cost $10. If I had not had insurance, the office visit ITSELF would have been $75 just for them to look at me, take my BP and temp and write a Rx for pyridium and an antibiotic.

I think you're (possibly purposefully?) ignoring the fact that this law places a HUGE burdeon on people who use these FDA classified OTC medications for things like allergy flare-ups, colds, and upper respiratory infections. Before this insanity 'feel good' legislation began, I could go to Target, get Sudafed and go home.

Now, however, I can't buy sudafed, or ANY medication containing pseudophederine at Target because target only sells those medications from the pharmacy---My target (the only one in a 50-mile radius) doesn't have a pharmacy. Whoops.

And if I have a cold today and need relief today, what good will it do to get an appointment with the doctor 3 weeks from now? The cold is gone and I no longer need psuedophederine-containing medications.

Of course, no one seems to understand that Vancouver, WA is only a few miles north of Portland, OR---any savvy meth-maker would happily make the I-5 North drive to Vancouver and get the pseudophederine there.

Or ignore the fact that a recent report stated that the majority of meth comes from MEXICO...

but hey! Just have feel-good legislation that does NOTHING to combat the problem other than inconvenience people who have legitimate uses for this medication. God forbid a poor person get an allergy attack or upper respiratory infection. I suppose they should just croak and die on their mucous....

[HadItUpToHere]

107. it sounds like you need a better Dr....

and better insurance if they force you to pay a $20 co-pay on a $7 prescription.

btw- if your insurance makes you pay a $20 co-pay for a $7 prescription, why not just tell the pharmacy that you DON'T have insurance, and then you would just have to pay the regular $7 amount...???

:crazy:

as far as people who NEED sudafed, but don't have a Dr. to prescribe it-
they should consider either driving or moving to a non-insane state...there are still a few left.

[HuckleB]

114. A "better doctor" equals a more irresponsible doctor?

And most people don't have a choice when it comes to health insurance, so that's a ridiculous answer. Further, the pharmacy has your records and knows you have insurance, and don't tell people they should just drive drive drive to other pharmacies, that costs money and time, too. As for your answer regarding the uninsured, give me a break. That's no answer. Spend hours and hours and tons of money driving to get your cold medicine, or just leave? Every state has its insane laws. For my money, even with the nonsense that's happened since Oregon's GOP went from a mass of moderates to right wingnuts, Oregon is still about as sane a state as one can find.

Oh brother.

Or better yet, uninsured cold sufferers will "import" the stuff, just like meth users: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002444021_meth18.html

[HadItUpToHere]

124. LOTS of insured people have a choice when it comes to Doctors.

i know that i always have- i currently have a ppo for my primary, and medicare for my secondary- but i used to be in an HMO, and even then i was able to choose a physician.

btw- just what option would satisfy you?

since moving to a better state/country isn't an option you're interested in pursuing, your best bet would be to run for office in the state legislature, and once in office- push hard for the option you feel is best to be adopted into law.

isn't life in a democracy invigorating and exciting?

[Heddi]

128. But you're not "everyone"

There are many insurance companies that not only limit the types of doctors you can see, but give you a list of doctors to choose from that participate in your particular plan.

You just have a really hard time seeing that life exists out of your vaccuum, don't you? You really can't accept that not everyone is in your situation, has your choices, and has your abilities.

Take off the glasses, my friend. The world is much bigger and much more complex than you seem to think it is.

Just because X is true for you does not mean that X is true for anyone.

Get past the "I got mine" attitude and you may get somewhere.

[HadItUpToHere]

130. i've had the full spectrum when it comes to health insurance-

100% coverage medical/dental/vision with no co-pay for me and my spouse & kids, way back in my union days...then to a company that took a hefty bite out of the paycheck, especially to cover the wife- in return for fairly reasonable ppo-type coverage that changed gradually, but often and always for the worse- i was in an hmo by the time i quit for a much better job, with slightly better benefits. and then to being self-employed, but with NO insurance, and then to an employer that provided NO insurance(and yes- i've had to go to the hospital more than once when i had NO insurance-) i'm very familiar with how they rape the non-insured vs. the insurance companies when it comes to costs on the bill- the ins. co.'s get HUGE 'volume' discounts, while the uninsured pay full retail.
luckily for me, i was able to come down with a debillitating congenital illness, and even though i can't hold a job any longer- i DO qualify for medicare, thanks to my fairly lenghty work history and years of paying into the Social Security system.
my wife and i also decided to pay the hefty extra sum to get me coverage under the ppo plan at her job- so that i don't have to rely soley on medicare- especially since i have a number of monthly prescriptions that wouldn't be covered.

btw- what exactly would you suggest is the best solution for the situation in oregon under discussion?

[HuckleB]

133. Thanks for not responding to my actual post.

Isn't discussion wonderful when you can choose to answer the question you want to answer rather than the one that was actually asked?

Fewer and fewer people have choice in who their docs are, nonetheless. History is great, but it doesn't mean that what was, still is. And more and more people are without insurance at all. Nevermind your avoidance of the question regarding your idea that an irresponsible doctor is a "better" doctor.

Again, find me a better state. I don't think you can.

Can you go back and actually answer the actual questions and address the actual points? That would be nice.

[HadItUpToHere]

138. your previous post contained exactly NO questions

so what am i supposed to answer??

and you have yet to answer MY question-
what option would you prefer?

after all- it's your ignorant state.

if i want sudafed here, i just go to the drugstore, take it off the shelf, go to the cashier, and pay for it.

[Heddi]

118. Ah yes. Drive to another state

So easy for someone in middle Oregon who is over 8 hours from any other state to just jump in the car and drive 16 hours each way to get Sudafed.

Why yes! That's the solution for SO many Americans.

What medications are YOU willing to drive 16+ hours round-trip to get?

And does it not apply to you that there are very fucking POOR PEOPLE in this country who have neither the time, the resources, nor the finances to drive 8 hours each way to buy SUDAFED? You know--that FDA-classified Over The Counter drug that should be just that--over the fucking counter

[HadItUpToHere]

125. What medications are YOU willing to drive 16+ hours round-trip to get?

222's...and i've done it a couple of times-
round trip driving from chicago to windsor canada- they don't sell them in the u.s.a., and i use them daily to supplement my prescription meds.

AND-

just where exactly in Oregon is it an 8-hour drive to the nearest state line?

AND some more-
ultimately in this country, if you don't like the laws, you can either work to get the law changed- or you can move...unless there's another option i haven't considered?

[Heddi]

127. Have you been to oregon?

it's a large state. There's this HUGE vast part in the middle of the state that is no where near state lines. Perhaps not 8 hours, but no less than 5 or 6, depending on how far away from the nearest interstate you are.

Oh---I have another option indeed. Keep pseudophederine-containing drugs on the shelves like they've been. Putting them behind the counter, or worse, by prescription only has done NOTHING to decrease the amount of meth use AT ALL.

This is a feel-good legislation that does NOTHING to address the problem of methamphetamine use.

Why aren't you crying that the OTHER, more TOXIC ingredients of meth be restricted in such a way as pseudophederine? The things like iodine, ethyl alcohol, lye, coleman's fuel---why can those be purhashed without any infringement or limits, but medication cannot?

And what happens when the NEXT drug of choice comes around...why not just make ALL medications by Rx only? Close down pharmacies and only allow doctors to dispense drugs

You really think that putting pseudophederine will do ANYTHING to curb the use of Meth? That meth-heads and meth-makers won't either find ways around this by forging Rx's, by going to other states to get the meds, or by having the ingredients imported from other states/countries?

This is a feel-good, knee-jerk law that does nothing to address OR solve the problem with methamphetamine. It just makes people feel warm and fuzzy and say "Well, at least we're doing SOMETHING" when the reality is that NOTHING of substance is being done.

[HadItUpToHere]

129. regarding your "other option"-

"I have another option indeed. Keep pseudophederine-containing drugs on the shelves like they've been..."

that's what we do here in my state- last time i checked, anyway- i've still got a lot left in various drawers, i'm sure- there always seems to be some around whenever i happen to need it, so i haven't tried to buy any recently.

so now that you've settled on the option you prefer- it's time to put it into action- you could either open your own store and put the sudafed out on the shelves for all to buy...
or-
if funding/time/initiative to open your own store is lacking, you could always convince other people who already have their own stores to display the sudafed in the general-population of store inventory. good luck, however- because i doubt that you'll find too many shopkeepers willing to risk jailtime and their business just in order to satisfy your wishes...:(
or-
you could bribe enough legislators and/or the governor to change the law...
or-
if funding for that is still an issue, you could try to organize, start, and run a grassroots campaign to get the matter on the ballot- and then convince enough voters to get the law changed...
or-
you can have a great gnashing of teeth over it, and complain endlessly about the injustice of it all to anonymous people on a world-wide-web internet messageboard(although i don't quite know how that will bring about the change in the law you are seeking)...
or-
you could move to a state that's a little less methy.
or-
you could just live with it, and every so often(once/year?), take a nice drive to the border, enjoying the scenery both to and fro, and purchase a couple packages of 'the stuff' to bring home and last you until the next such scenic drive.
we flatlanders envy you your scenery- you can envy our access to sudafed...how's that?

[LostinVA]

96. You can't "get" a doctor if you can't afford one

This is a bizarre post for DU. Seriously, you do realize that tens of million of people can't afford health insurance or/and a doctor's visit. Most of these are working poor. I used to eb one of them, and the ONLY reason I didn't die from an infection once was because my Mom is a nurse and drove four hours to me with antibiotics. It's like telling a Wal-Mart worker to go buy a Lexus... it's that out of their reach.

[LostinVA]

95. As stated up thread, most doctors won't/can't do that n/t

[HuckleB]

134. And shouldn't do that.

Having patients call in with "a cold" for pseudoephedrine is bound to lead to missed diagnosis in patients with more serious maladies -- and the outcome of that can be death.

[raccoon]

16. This bites. I guess if you live in Oregon,

and you don't have insurance, or don't want to pay for an office visit, you better read up on home remedies for colds, or ask aging relatives what they used to do.

This is over the top.

[Not_Giving_Up]

18. If you don't have insurance

I guess you're supposed to just let your allergies take over your life. I realize that it says that replacement OTC meds are being made, but what if they don't work as well? Tough shit, I guess.

[ChrisK]

19. Why not liquid and gel-caps?

The pseudoephedrine needs to be in a dry form for the meth makers so if you just offer the same items in the two forms I mentioned in my title wouldn't it help the ones needing it and cut down the meth making?

I understand the state needing to do something to try and get control of such a nasty drug but this bill seems to be going in the wrong direction, its like the laws that try to curb guns, they make the most law-abiding citizens, the ones who register there weapons and such, the "bad" guy when its the criminals that need to be dealt with...seems a bit out of line in my opinion.

Besides, can't a meth maker just hop the state line and get what he/she needs in a less restricted state next door?

[Ridiculous Bill]

21. meth

i live in oregon and am happy to comply. my hunch is that those of you complaining about this legislation haven't experienced meth in your community. we are surrounded by tweakers, crime, theft - with no sign of slowing. it's horrible. they had to do something.

[LeftyMom]

28. Oh yeah, no meth here

My own relatives have gone to rehab over it, one (now deceased) used to cook. We've had it here for a long time.

I don't think taking away the only affordable and effective medication for many people's allergies and sinus pain is an acceptable solution, especially since cooks will just synthesize meth from other ingredients or buy thier precursors in Mexico. (Used to be they'd go to Oregon, actually. Apparently some ingredients were restricted her in CA but readily availible up there.)

[HuckleB]

54. Baloney.

Those of us complaining want real solutions, not this weak-ass nonsense that provides nothing to deal with the problem itself. This is what happens when politicians don't want to get into the real muck of an issue. If you are actually concerned about meth, I would think you'd want something far more real world than this nonsense.

[geoshelby]

22. If you have seen the face of meth....

you will understand why we are taking the drastic measure of limiting the sale of cold medicines. While the government at all levels has been beating the anti-marijuana drum for the last twenty years, meth has been creeping into rural communities apparently spreading from West to East. I first heard of it in Hawaii in the early nineties. Recent local meth stories have included a guy who hopped on the back of a tow truck on the interstate while it was moving, a guy who ran onto the freeway trying to "catch cars" and was killed, a guy who was selling meth out of a baby stroller that also held his child. I lived for four years in a working class part of SE Port and in that time saw five meth houses busted in a ten sq block area. For those of you who don't know, once you cook meth in a house the house is basically a chemical death trap until undergoing a staggeringly expensive clean up.
Today, in almost many parts of Portland you may/will see people in the grip of meth. Like most burnouts, I guess people only "see" them when they want to. So with all that said, I ask all of you so eager to claim we are limiting major freedoms; which is more annoying, having to get a prescription once a year for cold drugs or having to deal with a whacked out meth-head while you are at the ATM, store, bus, ect...

(Just had to defend my fair state for my first post, been lurking for years)

[Blue Belle]

23. Well said Geoshelby....

Meth is a big problem here, and while I cringe at government restricting OTC cold remedies, it's a small price to pay if it keeps Meth out of our communities. It is very abundant on the Oregon coast... and I'd like to see it stop. The fact that I need to have a script for cold meds doesn't really bother me that much... usually when I get sick, I have to go to the doctor anyway.

Welcome to the DU. :)

[0rganism]

72. "...a small price to pay if it keeps Meth out of our communities."

What indication do you have that this law will do ANYTHING to keep meth out of our communities?

If a meth cook in Portland can just drive to Vancouver and buy bulk, what exactly have we gained?

[Blue Belle]

75. So we should do nothing and hope for the best?

Yes, you do have a valid point that a Meth cook could go to Vancouver Wa, or even BC for that matter... and there's nothing we can do to stop them (Never mind the fact that they had to travel out of state - which, by the way, you could do to get your Sudafed) So what would you suggest instead? Sit idly by and hope that the Meth problem takes care of itself?

[0rganism]

76. Is "nothing" the only alternative you can come up with?

Really, we could try all kinds of things, like improved free treatment programs, more agressive prosecution of dealers with increased mandatory sentencing, or any number of other "inside the box" remedies, but these are all stop-gap measures with limited benefit that can eventually be overwhelmed. What it ultimately comes down to is the failure of the drug war to do anything but create dangerous black markets and smuggling operations.

So here's my suggestion, which I suspect you will dislike:

The REAL solution is to decriminalize the substance, let big pharma ship it out like they do with any number of other mind-altering chemicals, and sales-tax the bejesus out of it to pay for treatment facilities for the addicted and support services for their families.

Compared with forcing people who may already be struggling financially to make extra co-pays to get a prescription for something that's OTC in every adjacent state without providing any ostensible guarantee of reducing or slowing the growth of meth use, or even significantly raising the street price, I think decrim looks downright reasonable. But woe to any legislator who proposes such a thing! The Drug Warriors will whip that elected official into shape post-haste.

[HuckleB]

59. Nope!

This isn't going to do anything to deal with the meth problem. Thus, I want real solutions, not unfunded mandates upon the populace that do nothing.

I will never "understand" feel good legislation from lazy politicians.

[JMDEM]

131. I have seen it's face

As a friend got dragged ... drugged... deeper and deeper into it, and now he can't get out.

The walking toothless skeletons begging for "some money for some food". Or almost violently insisting that they need $5 for gas money so they can get home to their kids.

The twitching meth whores that are too ugly to sell their bodies anymore.

The kids of meth addicts living in filth, open sores on their bodies, with parents so delusional that they could kill their own kids thinking they are giant cockroaches.

We can deal with this minor inconvenience to kill this major scourge.

[progressivebydesign]

24. This is good and necessary. I know it's an inconvenience..

.. but everyone has to understand that meth is killing America. I can't think of another drug that is such a crisis in our Country. Most police report that over 50% of their crime involves meth users. It tears families apart and hurts the children neglected in the process.

I applaud Oregon, as they've had a tough time of it, for their forward-thinking on this. It's a priority, even tho our pResident thinks mountain biking and barbeques are much more important.

[HuckleB]

135. This is bad legislation.

It will do nothing to solve the problem. It only pushes an actual "solution" down the road a few years. In the meantime, this non-solution is an unfunded mandate upon the taxpayers of Oregon. Our legislature and governor should be ashamed.

[GregW]

26. So let me get this straight ...

All the meth that is manufactured in Oregon (where I live) is made from pseudoephedrine pills PURCHASED IN OREGON???

Like it will be impossible to manufacture meth here with pills bought in California, Washington, or Idaho????????

What a dumb fucking idea.

[geoshelby]

30. getting rid of meth will be a journey of a thousand miles

Yeah, I can drive to Washington to buy cold medicine just like Oregonians go there to buy fireworks that are still legal up North. There are more state border discrepancies than we could ever cover here, but from my experience you have to start somewhere. Or we could just let it ride and return to everyone carrying sidearms like the wild west. Or do you think the police will be there to protect you every time a meth head crosses your path? It has been the police sounding the damn alarm, they don't have the resources to stop it! At some point addicts will make it around to the rich neighborhoods too and then maybe people will take this plague seriously.

So how many cold pills does the average person need in a year? I have a pack of Sudafed that has been in the bathroom for 2 years!

As a native Oregonian I will take the liberty of letting anyone who has never been here that we are a weird state. We do what is right for us.

[HadItUpToHere]

36. if you think that this measure will have an effect on meth use-

you're mistaken.

if people want it, there are people who will supply it.

cocaine doesn't grow in the U.S.- but crack still became a huge problem.

[SW FL Dem]

110. How many cold pills? - We need 180 a month

and those are the 12 hour Drixoral tablets. My family has horrible allergies and chronic sinus infections. We have tried the "new and improved" medications that are on the market and they are worthless. We each take two Drixoral a day year round to avoid sinus problems. This bill would present a HUGE problem for us. I'm glad I don't live in Oregon, it will be bad enough to have to stand in a friggin line and show ID when the new federal legislation takes effect.

Yes, meth is a problem, but this bill won't do shit to stop it.

[tanyev]

27. This is just crazy.

We have a big meth problem here in Texas, too, but they are now requiring all pharmacies to stock pseudophedrine behind the counter. You have to ask for it, show ID, and I'm sure will only be able to buy a limited quantity.

If I had to get a doctor's prescription every time I needed Sudafed for my allergies, I would just go ahead and ask for a real prescription drug, like Zyrtec. God only knows what people without insurance or who can't even afford to take time off work to see a doctor will do.

[MinotaurArms]

29. I find it hilarious

that the state that seems to have the biggest meth problem is one of the whitest (sure Oregon may seem like the progressive place, but it sure does lack in diversity). Something tells me that Hispanics and Blacks do not get into meth like white folk do. Maybe that is why they are doing something about it in Oregon. If it were a Black or Hispanic problem, no one would do anything about it.

[HuckleB]

136. Except this law does nothing to address the actual problem.

And, yes, this affects the Hispanic, Asian, and African-American communities in Oregon quite dramatically.

[DrBloodmoney]

32. Just another policy failure in the War On Drugs...

wise up geniuses... this will accomplish nothing.

[Redstone]

33. That's just fucking ridiculous. More hysteria.

Now you have to go to your doctor every time you have a fucking stuffy nose?

Jesus. This'll sure help keep health-insurance premiums down, won't it?

Redstone

[gulfcoastliberal]

123. When will it end? Theyre's now a NATIONWIDE TRACKING program for all RXs

Congress passed a law appropriating funds to create a nationwide prescription drug tracking program. Now you have to het an Rx for sudafed? Wow.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newjersey/ny-bc-nj--drugmonitoring-pa0812aug12,0,3875958.story?coll=ny-region-apnewjersey

[gardenista]

37. Well, I'm almost out on my own on this one.

This is actually a pretty simple way to get a handle on a very serious health problem. Meth is a scourge on rural communities in CA and Oregon, and is spreading throughout rural states.

I think it's worth doing whatever it takes to make it as hard as possible to purchase the components to make meth.

[High Plains]

46. The Mexican drug cartels who produce most meth...

snorted in the US--and Oregon--thank you for supporting the further consolidation of their market share.

This law won't have much effect on overall meth consumption since there are alternative sources, but it will probably result in a decrease in home meth labs. That has been the case in Oklahoma, anyway.

[gardenista]

63. So a reduction in home meth labs is not a positive outcome? nt

[tanyev]

69. Why not just put it behind the pharmacy counter and

make people show ID and only sell limited quantities? Wouldn't that regulate it just as well without the nuisance of having to get a prescription?

[gardenista]

99. That's what they're doing in CA.

It's better than nothing.

[HuckleB]

104. Oregon already does that. It was the second state to go there...

after Oklahoma. But our legislature is the pits, and this was one way they could pretend to do something about anything.

[HuckleB]

83. Why do you think that's going to happen?

And, even if it did, how would it shrink the number of meth users?

[gardenista]

100. There are lots of people who make "home-cooked" meth,

at least here in CA, esp. in the rural counties. I believe it would shrink the number of home meth labs, and consequently reduce the horrible environmental impact of home meth labs. And, indeed, I think it would reduce the number of meth users. I have no empirical data on that, however. Do you have any that shows it would *not* reduce the number of home meth labs? Not a challenge, just curious.

[HuckleB]

103. Actually...

even those labs get most of their raw materials from other sources. And those who don't can easily get in on the market for other sources. Again, this is a diversionary tactic and little else.

[IA_Seth]

80. Maybe on the west coast...

but certainly your assumption is wrong when it comes to Iowan meth..I have been around a lot of the rougher types for the majority and my life and have never met a soul who buys 'foreign' meth...

hey at least they buy american, huh?

[HuckleB]

55. This isn't going to do a damn thing.

Even most local producers get their pseudoephedrine through illegal channels now. Further, most production occurs outside of the US, and it will easily replace any small-time producers affected by this.

This is no solution. It's feel-good nonsense. It's what happens when politicians get lazy.

[SoCalDem]

48. Isn't that special?? Co-pay $20..hours wasted to see the dr

and then probably a $25 copay for the meds..after a hassle at the pharmacy.. for a runny nose:wtf:..

This will now become a REAL blackmarket drug..:( (or people will have their friends & family send it to them from other states via USMail..someday a package will go lost, be opened and someone will go to jail for trafficking Dristan)

WTG guys:eyes:

[noshenanigans]

49. well, i don't have insurance..

I found a little trailer in front of a Food City in a "bad" part of town that would give me antibiotics for 60 bucks in cash.. guess it's back there again.

[Giant Robot]

50. This is a tough one.

I can see both sides to this issue. Obviously efforts need to be taken to help reduce the use of meth. I don't think that is the point of any debate. And if this is supported by the will of the people, then great more power to democracy. But it seems to me like its just more of the same, legislature trying to slap a quick fix on a complex problem. Not that that's ever happened before. And as a long time allergy sufferer, I can tell you that I will be very unhappy when I have to go to the doctor for a script for my old OTC allergy meds. More money I have to cough up that I don't have. Honestly I empathize with the desire to rid the state of meth production, use, and the crime that accompanies it. I agree that efforts need to be taken to accomplish that. I am just unsure if this is the way to start this process off or not. It is a tough one.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

51. Can they purchase Sudafed PE there OTC?

It's the one that's made with phenylephrine instead of pseudoephedrine. I've never tried it but my understanding is it works the same and cannot be used to manufacture meth.

I read about phenylephrine based decongestants years ago and for some reason (money?) the pharmaceutical companies wouldn't make them readily available. I think they've started to now due to the restrictions that have been placed on all pseudoephedrine based products.

I just thought I'd mention this for those of you who are stuck under this law. As I said before, I've only heard they work the same, I've never tried them.

Note: Phenylephrine may be misspelled, I'm going by my memory and it's been awhile.

[mikeytherat]

56. Sudafed PE? Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucks!

Tried it, did nothing (we have begun calling it Sudafed PE - Placebo Effectiveness).

Got about 22 of my 24 blister pack left -- anyone want some useless "medication"?

mikey_the_rat

[Lone_Star_Dem]

102. That figures....

It would have been too good to be true. I've never even seen the stuff where I live and didn't know if it worked.

In Texas they make you give out your personal info just to buy Sudafed. We were pretty upset by that but I guess we should be grateful we can still get it OTC at all.

[HuckleB]

58. It doesn't work the same.

There is a reason that pseudoephedrine products are popular: They work!

[LostinVA]

97. No, it doesn't come CLOSE to working the same

For example: Advil and Aleve work GREAT with me, but Tylenol? Nothing. I have horrible allergies, so this is literally sentencing me to a life of misery if I don't have health insurance.

[renaissanceguy]

66. Once again, fixing the symptom but not the problem

while causing a lot more deaths because of it.

This is NOT a smart idea. Many people rely on cold medicines so they don't have to go to doctors. Now, either they fork out the money for a doctor's visit PLUS for the cold medicine, or they let their colds get worse. Not to mention, they have to take time off of work because of this illness.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/472476

[MattSWin]

68. I agree with this...

I think it's more strange that we require prescriptions for antibiotics(which has no illicit use) but not pseudoephedrine which is a stimulant drug.

I'm sure there are countless otc medications people can use for colds and if your allergies are so bad that you need these pseudoephedrines immediately you probably already visit an allergist regularly and won't have much trouble getting a prescription.

In all honesty, for people with access to insurance, Medicaid, or Medicare it's probably better for medicine to not be otc. With otc drugs like Prevacid you pay 100% for it whereas prescription Nexium(equivalent of Prevacid) is partially covered by insurance.

[HuckleB]

90. You do, eh?

Do you understand that one of the biggest reason that more virulent bacteria have developed over the past 75 years is because many patients fail to complete their full, directed prescription of antibiotics? Knowing that, do you have any idea what would be the likely outcome of OTC antibiotics?

Talk about a practice that would likely lead to serious problems. That would make the "meth epidemic" look like a fender bender compared to a multi-death pile up on the highway.

[0rganism]

71. Stupidest. Law. Ever.

Well, okay, maybe not. But it's up there.

The meth cooks in Portland will now have to drive an extra 20 minutes to buy bulk cold medicine in Washington state. :woohoo:

Meanwhile, everyone with legitimate need for the stuff has to get a farking prescription to get it at the local pharma. Newsflash: DOCTOR APPOINTMENTS ARE NOT FREE.

[genieroze]

74. Maybe all of the allergy sufferers should ban together and beat the

piss out of speed freaks. /sarcasm P.S... I am a allergy sufferer as well as a asthma sufferer

[alarimer]

86. fucking ridiculous

making people go to a doctor for a fucking cold. What if you don't have insurance or can't afford to go? fucking bullshit.

[DrBloodmoney]

101. It hasn't worked in Oklahoma

the first state to ban OTC sale of cold medication.

Meth lab busts dropped 90%, so that means people stopped using meth, right?

WRONG

Folks are just gettting it from Mexico.

"But at the same time, seizures of smokeable Mexican meth known as "crystal ice" rose nearly fivefold, from 384 cases in the 15 months before the law to 1,875 since."

http://blog.drugpolicy.org/2005/08/banning-otc-sales-of-cold-medicine.html

[HuckleB]

105. Exactly.

Oregon was the first state to follow Oklahoma's lead in putting OTC sudafed behind the pharmacy counter. That didn't work, so now we're doing more of the same. Ugh.

[bleedingheart]

112. typically bans create underground markets, Liquor, Abortion..etc

where there is a "need/desire" there is always a market.

[mtnester]

108. You know, maybe some damn COMMON SENSE would have been in order

maybe when someone comes in to buy a DOZEN bottles of it, the cashier would think twice?

I know that would not prevent a person from going to twelve drug stores to get it, but it would make it a helluva lot more inconvenient for the manufacturers rather that asking the consumer to do this.

What OTC counter drug is next? Will farmers need to have armed guards around their anhydrous ammonia tanks? Will anhydrous ammonia become regulated so that farmers have to hire people to apply it?

Now, don't get me wrong, I think meth is the biggest scourge to hit the drug world ever, but if the Feds can spend a gazillion dollars a year locking up folks who enjoy a couple of doobies now and then, surely they would want to spend a triple gazillion to put meth manufacturers out of business.

On edit - just after posting this, I found this in LBN:

WH Searches for Balance in Drug Fight (focus has been on pot, not meth)http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1711427&mesg_id=1711427

[HuckleB]

115. Mexican Methamphetamine Replacing Domestic Meth

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=1945

[HuckleB]

116. Oklahoma meth users importing

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002444021_meth18.html

[HuckleB]

117. Stopping Meth Makers Hasn't Stopped Oklahoma's Meth Problems

http://www.kotv.com/main/home/stories.asp?whichpage=1&id=87565

Funny thing is, Oklahoma didn't require a prescription to get as far as this ridiculous law hopes to get in Oregon. Hmm. Can anyone actually justify this law?

[SW FL Dem]

121. Damn - my Costco only has Sudafed PE

they have discontinued the regular stuff. This is a nightmare.