I had no idea.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Nor was there a Constitutional right for Wally Schirra(sp?) to use it while in space.

[1gewehr]

Actually, Sudafed is NOT a key ingredient in meth. It is a key ingredient in one of the easiest and cheapest methods used to illegally manufacture meth. There are other methods of illicit manufacture that do not utilize commercial cold remedies. All of the processes used to manufacture meth are potentially hazardous and involve dangerous substances.

The latest statistics I have seen has shown no change in the price or availability of street meth as a result of the restrictions on cold remedy sales. And according to the 2006 study, only 20% of US illegal meth comes from domestic production. the other 80% is smuggled in from Mexico and other countries.

So, I fail to see how keeping normal people from buying 37 cold pills has any effect whatsoever on the illegal trade, manufacture, or use of meth. I had a cousin who was destroyed by meth use. So I am intimately aware of how destructive those addicts can be to themselves and anyone around them. But I fail to see how making it illegal has had any positive effect on reducing it's use or manufacture. I believe that the money could be much better used on treatment.

Those in favor of keeping drugs illegal often make the point that if they were legal, we would see a huge explosion in their use. This is in opposition to the facts and reason. Illegal drug use INCREASES when the drugs are made illegal. The reasons should be obvious. When a drug can be bought without restriction, you don't find pushers in the schools putting pressure on your kids to take them, or slipping it to them to get them hooked and increase their customer base. Prior to 1913, there were no drug restrictions in the US. Drug addiction rates were actually slightly lower than they are today. A perfect example is what happened during Prohibition. Per person alcohol usage rates went UP. After the repeal of Prohibition, alcohols usage dropped to below it's previous levels. And so did the crime, corruption, and other ill effects of illegal alcohol.

[daddyo]

this just a plain stupid post!

I'm SO sorry you feel that way.

[East_TN_Patriot]

Well, having been a cop, and now a criminologist, I feel very certain that making pseudoephedrine a contolled substance will have no effect on the production of meth. Instead, people will commit burglaries and robberies to get it. Requiring ID and logbooks for the drug and putting it behind the counter didn't work. This won't either. The logic of some of you is identical to the logic used by the anti-gun crowd: "if it only prevents one person from being exposed..." Give me a break!

Sent from my SPH-M900 using Tapatalk

[Guest Drewsett]

I can also say I've seen the effects adressed above and I have similair feelings. Before all the knee-jerk reactions about a communist nanny-state you guys may want to consider that there is no Constitutional right to Sudafed and there are many alternative cold medicines available.

Of course there is no Constitutional right to cold medicine. However there is the 4th Amendment, and while current precedent may not support this interpretation, I don't think it's too far of a leap to call signing a log for purchase an intrusion into the "right to privacy" that is often inferred from 4A.

Also, I can't seem to find the part of the Constitution that gives the Federal government the right to legislate what I can and cannot put into my body. I would think that 10A might cover it....

[Guest db99wj]

It's a kneejerk legislation that makes the crying, uninformed, dumba$$ public happy and helps get politicians reelected.

Look at magazine capacity, oh, they hold to many, well legislated it down so that we can only have a magazine that holds 5, so the shooter in AZ only had 5 round mags, he would have had multiple ones and changing out the mags once empty, what 2 seconds, 3, maybe even 5 seconds. It's legislation that will make the crying hearts happy, and completely ignore the source of the problem.

[gregintenn]

that there is no Constitutional right to Sudafed and there are many alternative cold medicines available.

Everything you have the right to do isn't specifically ennumerated in the constitution. Anyway, I haven't found any sinus medicine other than pseudoephedrine that actually works. If you have, what is it?

[Raoul]

Everything you have the right to do isn't specifically ennumerated in the constitution. Anyway, I haven't found any sinus medicine other than pseudoephedrine that actually works. If you have, what is it?

bourbon. jitterfree.

[gregintenn]

bourbon. jitterfree.

It makes you feel betterr about having sinus trouble, but actually does little to cure it. Actually, a sinus infection just reduces the enjoyment factor of a good bourbon.

[JReedEsq]

The point I was trying to make is that Meth is a real problem and I think you guys maybe over reacting if you think some 3 letter Federal agency is going to raid your house because you've bought some sinus medicine. Please don't lecture me on the 4th either. You may remember part of my practice is to defend people acussed of crimes. The 4th is one of those little technicalities that gets people off frome time to time. I'm merely agreeing with what NRA said about the severity of the problem and you guys start going off the deep end talking about legalizing drugs. For the record, my problem with drug addicts isn't that they use drugs, it's that they have the potential to fry their brains to the point that they begin to rob and steal to get the drugs.

[gregintenn]

I think you guys maybe over reacting if you think some 3 letter Federal agency is going to raid your house because you've bought some sinus medicine.

Call me crazy, but I don't trust anybody with a badge or an elected office. A lot of people thought the Jews were overreacting in Germany. It didn't happen all at once. I shouldn't have to cede any freedoms because of the bad decisions of others. Going to the doctor is a major pain in the can to people who work for a living. No one even considers punishing the offenders. Meth is a bad prmblem. I haven't disputed that. What you are proposing, however, isn;t going to help, just like every "common sense" gun control law doesn't help anything. Making and selling Meth is already illegal! We need to enforce existing laws and we wouldn't have a problem.

[JReedEsq]

What you are proposing, however, isn;t going to help, just like every "common sense" gun control law doesn't help anything. Making and selling Meth is already illegal! We need to enforce existing laws and we wouldn't have a problem.

What just a minute... I didn't propose anything. All I did was agree with NRA's post that Meth is a problem. I never said anything about making it a prescription drug, a registry, or anything else that you've imputed to me. I'm also not sure what you mean by "work for a living" but you are sorely mistaken if you think I'm some spoiled frat-boy. I've worked damn hard to get where I'm at and had absolutely nothing handed to me.

[Guest Drewsett]

I think everyone just needs to take a deep breath.

First of all, JReedEsq, I wasn't attempting to lecture you on the Fourth. I know enough about the law via lawyers in the family and my own experience and study to know that I don't know enough. I don't have a J.D. either. That doesn't mean that my philosophical discussion of the law and what I perceive to be its intent is any less valid than yours in this forum. In a courtroom, yes, here, no.

Second, I don't think that anyone thinks you're a spoiled frat boy. Through the interactions I have had with gregintenn I doubt he meant that you didn't work for a living when he made that comment.

Gregintenn, JReedEsq did not say that he was in favor of the government passing a law making sudafed obtainable only via prescription. He did say that he thought meth was a problem worth policing.

What I say to all of you....

What we're doing right now is working so well. We're getting better and better every day at reducing the crime rate and getting addicts off of drugs. If you believe that, then I have a bridge in London I'll sell ya. So perhaps instead of doing what we have done in the past, which is pass more laws in an attempt to make things MORE illegal, why don't we go the other way. Maybe if we don't always do what we always did, we may get something besides what we've gotten in the past.

Call me crazy, I don't care, but read the Jefferson quote in my signature and tell me that deep down, you don't agree with old Thomas.

[gregintenn]

What just a minute... I didn't propose anything. All I did was agree with NRA's post that Meth is a problem. I never said anything about making it a prescription drug, a registry, or anything else that you've imputed to me. I'm also not sure what you mean by "work for a living" but you are sorely mistaken if you think I'm some spoiled frat-boy. I've worked damn hard to get where I'm at and had absolutely nothing handed to me.

I expect most of us here do work for a living. It is a big deal to stay home from work and go to the Dr. when it shouldn't be necessary. I agree that meth is a problem, but punishing law abiding citizens, and regulating one of several ingredients used to make it is NOT the way to deal with the problem. I didn't mean to offend you, and I imagine we'd see eye to eye on most things. I am simply asking for everyone who thinks making ephederine available by prescription only to think it through and not just jump on the bandwagon blindly. Frankly, allergies is also a real and serious problem for many; especially in Tennessee. If there are hundreds of us sitting in an already crowded Dr's office waiting to get a prescription for it, someone who really needs to see the Dr. isn't going to get to. To my knowledge, there isn't a suitable alternative for it. If there is, I'd really like to know. I've tried a lot of products, and found only one that works.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Actually, my actions should be protected more if and when the day(or night) comes and I catch

one of those bastards in my back yard, or worse in my house stealing.

Virtually outlawing Sudafed has done absolutely nothing to meth crime, except maybe increased

crime rate. when I say "virtually" I mean beg for the damned stuff at a pharmacy and sign for it

like a "junky". I resent the hell out of any state law that restricts my ability to take care of myself.

Some do-gooder politician is going to make things more difficult for any law abiding citizen to take

care of himself or his family every time he gets a law passed "for the children".

When you end up breeding an ultra low class of welfare recipients, what do you expect? Society

always picks up the tab.

[partypilot1]

Making it a prescription drug wouldn't help the problem, the dope heads would just start injecting bath salts for a high, oh wait, they are starting to do that now. They do everything from inhale spray paint to eating plant seeds for a high. I believe it would be wise to teach people why not to kill yourself and let them make the choice. We are wasting our time outlawing everything that can hurt a person, we need to take the time to educate them in elementary school why huffing paint won't land you in the pilot seat of a jet, or whatever children are into these days.

[JReedEsq]

Lately I've seen way more incidents involving presciption opiates than anything else. I guess that doesn't bode well for the idea that making a sudafed prescription only would cut down on the problems with meth. I really don't see a problem with keeping it locked up though. Why make it easier to shoplift? I don't think I fundamentally disagree with some of the posts on the board, I just think people can go a little overboard with references to communism or the 3rd reich everytime there is a regulation on anything. The assumption can be that any regulation will lead to more regulation and eventually regulation on guns and other things. I just see these as different issues. I'm not proposing the regulations; or even saying they would be effective, I'm just pointing out they are different issues and it's a huge leap to regulate something that's not the same not a constitutionally protected to something that is. While I don't necessarily belive that civil rights are being violated if we regulate pain meds, I tend to agree with the arguements that the regulations probably won't stop the problem.

On another note, what really chaps my a$$ is the pain clinics. I've had both clients and opposing parties in my cases who recieve prescription opiates (basically heroin in a pill) for years on end, to treat very minor problems. I've usually seen these people involved in the legal system when DCS or another relative is petitioning to take their child or children away for being a drug addict. Regardless whether or not legal opiate use makes someone a negligent parent, I've become very irritated at TennCare or even private health insurance paying for it all. I'm not talking about wounded veterans here, I'm talking about someone that ten years ago had the kind of low-speed soft-tissue damage car wreck that I would turn away if they walked into my office, and years later they are still on pain meds. Doctors can usually recognize someone who is only looking for meds because they don't have much of a quantifiable medical condition yet they keep coming back asking for scrips. When the docs turn them away they go to the "pain management clinics" which really don't do anything except dole out opiates. If these people need supervised drug use, fine. It just irks me to no end that our medical system absorbs the costs.

I've had two minor medical conditions recently when my doc offered to prescribe me opiates, and both times I said, you know what? I'm really fine with Motrin. That's just me, and it's another topic, but my work sometimes gives me very little patience for substance abuse. I've had personal injury cases that I've dumped because I didn't trust my client, so many divorce and other family law cases relate to addiction, and of course I see it in my criminal practice as well.

I generally don't get sick that often so maybe I've developed an insensitivity to those who really need a medication. Sorry for my rant, but our experiences always shape our opinions.

Edited February 15, 2011 by JReedEsq

[gregintenn]

Lately I've seen way more incidents involving presciption opiates than anything else. I guess that doesn't bode well for the idea that making a sudafed prescription only would cut down on the problems with meth. I really don't see a problem with keeping it locked up though. Why make it easier to shoplift? I don't think I fundamentally disagree with some of the posts on the board, I just think people can go a little overboard with references to communism or the 3rd reich everytime there is a regulation on anything. The assumption can be that any regulation will lead to more regulation and eventually regulation on guns and other things. I just see these as different issues. I'm not proposing the regulations; or even saying they would be effective, I'm just pointing out they are different issues and it's a huge leap to regulate something that's not the same not a constitutionally protected to something that is. While I don't necessarily belive that civil rights are being violated if we regulate pain meds, I tend to agree with the arguements that the regulations probably won't stop the problem.

On another note, what really chaps my a$$ is the pain clinics. I've had both clients and opposing parties in my cases who recieve prescription opiates (basically heroin in a pill) for years on end, to treat very minor problems. I've usually seen these people involved in the legal system when DCS or another relative is petitioning to take their child or children away for being a drug addict. Regardless whether or not legal opiate use makes someone a negligent parent, I've become very irritated at TennCare or even private health insurance paying for it all. I'm not talking about wounded veterans here, I'm talking about someone that ten years ago had the kind of low-speed soft-tissue damage car wreck that I would turn away if they walked into my office, and years later they are still on pain meds. Doctors can usually recognize someone who is only looking for meds because they don't have much of a quantifiable medical condition yet they keep coming back asking for scrips. When the docs turn them away they go to the "pain management clinics" which really don't do anything except dole out opiates. If these people need supervised drug use, fine. It just irks me to no end that our medical system absorbs the costs.

I've had two minor medical conditions recently when my doc offered to prescribe me opiates, and both times I said, you know what? I'm really fine with Motrin. That's just me, and it's another topic, but my work sometimes gives me very little patience for substance abuse. I've had personal injury cases that I've dumped because I didn't trust my client, so many divorce and other family law cases relate to addiction, and of course I see it in my criminal practice as well.

I generally don't get sick that often so maybe I've developed an insensitivity to those who really need a medication. Sorry for my rant, but our experiences always shape our opinions.

As far as the regulation part of your post, I guess I just have a general mindset that the vast majority of regulations are bad, and often have motives other than the obvious. Aside from that, I firmly agree with everything else in your post.

[Chucktshoes]

I am admittedly of two minds on this subject. I support the legalization of all narcotics for recreational use because prohibition doesn't work and only enriches criminals and their organizations, yet, I hate ****ing tweakers. I am an overnight manager at a 24hr pharmacy and I see these bastards come in non stop all night long buying their pseudoephedrine based products. They roll in by the full car loads from AR and MS, coming in one at a time getting the variety of PSE drug their cook has requested (I have gotten to where I can tell which groups are going to same cook by which PSE drug they buy) they also steal other ingredients like lithium batteries or instant cold packs for the shake 'n' bakers. Interesting note, the amount of ammonia pellets in an instant cold pack is a perfectly premeasured amount for a 2 liter shake 'n bake. They come in so thick it affects our ability to help actual patients who need actual medicine. The TWRA oughta declare tweakers a pest animal and allow unrestricted hunting in or out of municipal limits.

I will admit that I do have a strong emotional response to meth. My family is from AR and we have lost nearly an entire generation to meth. I have no less than 10 cousins either in jail, on parole, or with convictions on their records because of it and most of them still can't break free of it. When I was a teen my uncle (who is only 6 years older than me) was my best friend. I don't even know who he is anymore, meth has destroyed the vibrant, intelligent man I once knew and left a hollowed out shell with bad teeth who can't string together enough cohesive thoughts to have a conversation longer than 3 minutes. My abilities to approach this problem logically have been deeply compromised because of what meth has done to my family.

For my own personal amusement however, I have started telling the tweakers that our PSE sales system is down and we can't sell and when they ask for directions to another 24 hour store I give them directions close, but with one or two wrong turns to have them end up in Orange Mound or parts of South Memphis that are not exactly smart or safe for a carload of tweaking /jonesing pieces of white trash to be in at 3am. If any MPD officers here end up having to clean up a resulting mess, sorry.

Edited February 15, 2011 by Chucktshoes

[JReedEsq]

As far as the regulation part of your post, I guess I just have a general mindset that the vast majority of regulations are bad, and often have motives other than the obvious. Aside from that, I firmly agree with everything else in your post.

You think most regulations are bad. OK, fair enough. I think it's perfectly acceptable (and probably even a good idea) to question motives behind new regs. Where we differe is when you begin to equate any regulation with Nazi Germany or saying they distrust anyone with a badge. Remember, my job is often to stand up for people when LEOs have overstepped their bounds. Sometimes we have to fight aggressively to see that they get a fair shake. That said, more often than not, the LEO is a good guy just trying to do a job like everyone else. It's refreshing to have a civil discourse without this thread deteriorating into name-calling and paranoia. As for new regs, I probably agree with you more often than I disagree, but for different reasons.

Edited February 15, 2011 by JReedEsq

[gregintenn]

It's refreshing to have a civil discourse without this thread deteriorating into name-calling and paranoia.

I could not agree more.

I have trouble expressing my thoughts well. My thinking on restrictive regulations is this: 200 years ago, for instance, this was a very vibrant country; by far the greatest in the world. It was strong, growing, and the place to be. It had relatively few regulations. For the past 200 years, we've been constantly adding laws and regulations; most ridiculous, but some necessary. All in all, do you think our nation was stronger 200 years ago, or is it stronger now? Which had lower crime rates? Better morality? Under which Government would you prefer to live? Which tax rate would you prefer? Every time we add something like this, it equates to a larger and larger financial burdon on the taxpayer, and less liberty.

Where we differe is when you begin to equate any regulation with Nazi Germany or saying they distrust anyone with a badge.

I actually said I distrust anyone with a badge or an elected office. Do not misunderstand that to mean that I think all LEOs are bad, but when I see one, or have to deal with one. I keep my eye on him. There are many fine LEOs, and the have a difficult and thankless job. Often, they are handcuffed from doing what they should. If you had the same experiences I've had, I believe you'd feel much the same. I'd go into detail, and provide examples until you got tired of reading them, but you'd likely think me a liar.

Edited February 15, 2011 by gregintenn

[Guest Drewsett]

I also am enjoying a good debate on contentious issues where the parties have not resorted to ad hominems or other attacks.

I, if you can't tell from my previous statements, a libertarian. I do believe that in my ideal world there would be little to no regulation of behavior other than the most widely accepted offenses such as murder, theft, etc. Freedom of choice, both personal and economic, is the paramount value. Application of utilitarian ethical principles help to solve disagreements and a Hobbesian-style "social compact" arrangement to society would take care of most everything. There would be no Social Security, no Medicare, no tax credits or government largess of any kind. Government would operate with a strict constructionist philosophy, and the 10th Amendment would be a major factor in court precedent, unlike today where it is little more than a footnote.

That is my ideal and that is why I advocate in the manner I do. I realize, of course, that the likelihood of my ideal actually coming to fruition is virtually nil. That doesn't mean I think there isn't room for improvement to our current system.

I think making pseudoephedrine into a prescription-only drug is a step in the WRONG direction. The continued prohibition of illicit substances only serves to destroy our country.

It is a generally accepted economic principle that a tax is a method of discouraging behavior. I can be sold on the idea that illicit substances should be discouraged, but not prohibited. I did a pretty detailed study on the economic ramifications of the legalization of marijuana for an econ course last year; the numbers I crunched, including the cost of incarceration, prosecution, policing, and assuming a tax rate similar to cigarettes and alcohol, revealed that the state of Tennessee would see an economic benefit of 4.3 billion annually. That's assuming current consumption and production estimates remain at year 2006 levels (the last years I analyzed), and I think that rates might rise. I did not take into account any job creation, which would provide an additional economic benefit; the data wasn't there in sufficient quantity and I did not want to speculate.

If we were to take a utilitarian view on this issue and ask ourselves, "which decision provides the greatest benefit to the greatest number", the issue becomes pretty clear. We are currently experiencing the phenomenon known as the "tyranny of the majority", due to apathy and misguided attempts at social engineering.

Oh, and fyi, apart from mild experimentation with marijuana a number of years ago I have never done drugs and if they were legal I doubt that would change. That still doesn't change my view that they should be legal. Legalization would provide the greatest benefit to the greatest number. Personal responsibility shouldn't go out the window.

[Raoul]

I was an anarchist at 26. Now I'm just ornery.

[Guest Drewsett]

I was an anarchist at 26. Now I'm just ornery.

Oh I'm no anarchist. Man left to his own devices is brutal and generally acts in his own self interest, to the detriment of those around him.

That's why we need a social compact. Our Constitution provides this

[gregintenn]

In a nutshell, you should have the right to do anything you want as long as it doesn't impede upon my rights.