Join 3,503 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Cold medicine to be restricted starting this weekend
September 27, 2006 10:20 AM   Subscribe

Feeling sick and thinking of buying over-the-counter cold medicine like Sudafed or Claritin-D? Be prepared to wait in line at the pharmacy counter, show a photo ID, and sign a log book. The nationwide restriction of medication containing pseudoephedrine or ephedrine begins this weekend. Why? Those 2 ingredients are used to make meth.. (NPR audio piece).
posted by jaimev (136 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
This is so awesome. Allergies and sinus infections will never be the same again!
posted by blucevalo at 10:26 AM on September 27, 2006


When I was in college (ten years ago good lord i'm old), I worked as the head tech in the Mac lab. The lab was usually open all night, which led to people working in there at all hours. It was a common occurrence for me to come in on a Saturday morning to tidy up, and find dozens of empty bottles of the (really) cheap pseudoephedrine knockoff they sold at the gas station down the street. The pills were very tiny, and the bottles were pink. No wonder the 4am crowd always looked so wired.
posted by Shecky at 10:34 AM on September 27, 2006


Sudafed has been OTC only here in Michigan for awhile. I feel so naughty when I go to get some, like it's the 50s and I'm buying rubbers.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 10:39 AM on September 27, 2006


More than those restrictions ... my wife, who suffers from allergies, can only buy one package of 10 pills at a time. She complains bitterly about it, and wonders why the drug companies who make the pills haven't pulled the usual strings in Washington that is limiting the sales of their product. Less than 2 weeks of something that she takes daily is a pain, and means she needs to keep close tabs on her "stash," because she can't stand to go "cold turkey." And maybe it's related to the restrictions, but it seems that stores aren't keeping as much in stock, so often they've sold out of the generic or larger size.
posted by crunchland at 10:40 AM on September 27, 2006


At last, America will be meth free.
posted by Mr_Zero at 10:41 AM on September 27, 2006 [1 favorite]


The last two times I bought the stuff last winter here in Ohio I had to sign a book. No waiting in line, no inconvenience, etc. Personally, I could care less.

But, having a friend who works Meth cases in Ohio (a huge Meth producing state....lots of rednecks in these parts), I can say that the amount that the police have confiscated in raids is staggering.
posted by tgrundke at 10:44 AM on September 27, 2006


Sorry for the self-link, but a couple of months ago I wrote an in-depth article for Wired about the war on ingredients and equipment that can be used to make meth, showing that it is part of a larger, overreaching effort by certain government agencies to restrict access to once-common chemicals because of fears of drugs and terrorism. It's a long piece in which I tried to deliver the big picture: "Don't Try This at Home." There's a lot of relevant context in there.
posted by digaman at 10:44 AM on September 27, 2006


12. I have chronic sinus problems. Will I be limited from getting the amount of pseudoephedrine I need?
Yes, with this new law there will be limits on the number of tablets of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine that can be purchased in a 30-day period.


I know that this is an official document, but I'd love to see a little bit more compassion for people than "we're sorry that you can't get the medication you need, but you should have thought of that before there was a meth epidemic."
posted by OverlappingElvis at 10:46 AM on September 27, 2006 [2 favorites]


It's been like this in Iowa and a few other states for at least a year. As someone who suffers from heavy seasonal allergies and sinusitis I'd have to say I couldn't muster up any outrage over this one. I haven't seen or experienced any negative repurcussions, but there has been a bit of a buzz over the technicalities of the new nationwide restrictions. Some say the nationwide act would water down the very stringent systems enacted by individual states for the benefit of the pharmaceutical industry, but that remains to be seen.

If you've ever seen a tweakers lab, their house, or had to clean it up or their broken extended family you'd probably think a little differently about it. Shit is disgusting, and it will ruin you in every way before you know what happened.
posted by prostyle at 10:49 AM on September 27, 2006


Given the simplicity of meth, does anyone believe this is going to be a hinderance to anyone doing serious production? If I was going to make meth I'd start with a much cheaper material that I could buy in bulk and that no one was particularly watching.

I haven't worked all the details out on this because I kind of like having co-workers who have most of their teeth.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 10:49 AM on September 27, 2006


This is still better than the reaction to the eventual news that you can make meth out of puppydogs, the gurgles of a happy infant and that awesome rush of a first love.
posted by Divine_Wino at 10:50 AM on September 27, 2006 [2 favorites]


Grrrr. Pseudoephedrine, while not the only decongestant out there (guaefenesin and phenylpropylene are used as substitutes), some of us prefer pseudoephedrine and find it works best for sinus congestion. If you have ever had chronic sinus disease, this should piss you off. They ought to make it possible to buy it by prescription in whatever quantity is appropriate.

More useless war on drugs propaganda nonsense. And they even stopped making Advil Cold and Sinus!
posted by fourcheesemac at 10:52 AM on September 27, 2006


I had to do this just this very weekend. I was puzzled by the pharmacy logbook at first and asked about it. I figured it was probably meth related.

Irritating and pointless.
posted by kaseijin at 10:53 AM on September 27, 2006


These laws have been very effective.

At putting meth production into the hands of the Mexican mafia, that is. Is this good news? Sure -- the toxic tweakerlabs are in someone else's neighborhood (you know, gross poor Third-World types), and we get to feel all virtuous. Just sayin'.
posted by digaman at 10:55 AM on September 27, 2006 [2 favorites]


My town just won't be the same without all that meth. Sigh.
posted by BrodieShadeTree at 10:56 AM on September 27, 2006


It's been like this in Oregon since last year, but not only that -- a lot of standard over the counter stuff has been de-pseudoephedrinized. They sell Robotussin and Nyquil here that is completely useless -- they're pretty much a placebo now.
posted by mathowie at 10:57 AM on September 27, 2006


Do not even get me started on this.

My whole family (two one year olds, me and my husband) were sick for almost two weeks, and the restrictions were already going. Due to allergies, the only med that works for me is pseudoephedrine, and trying to get more than 8 pills worth without going out every day with my 101 degree fever was the most AGGRAVATING thing I've dealt with in a long time.

Seriously, what, are we ALL effing drug addicts?? And the guys who want the mass amounts to make their meth? These inane laws aren't going to stop them. So really, the only people who are going to be inconvenienced at all are the legit users of these medications.

What a f*cking farce!
posted by OhPuhLeez at 10:58 AM on September 27, 2006


They've been doing this in Texas for a year or two now. They've also also started replacing the NyQuil (at least at CVS and Walgreens) with the "new formula!" version that has Phenylephrine instead of pseudoephedrine. Unfortunately, the new formula sucks and isn't nearly as effective as the old one.
posted by mrbill at 11:00 AM on September 27, 2006


Given the simplicity of meth, does anyone believe this is going to be a hinderance to anyone doing serious production?

From what I've read, meth production and consumption has not been limited by these laws. If anything it is putting more mom and pop meth producers out of business so more of the larger operations get the business.

What a stupid law. I thought big pharma had more juice in Washington.

I do like how Claritin D is saying in its ads how it is refusing to change its formula so now you have to ask at the counter.
posted by birdherder at 11:01 AM on September 27, 2006


They've been doing this in TX since at least last year. On top of that, they actually scan your driver's license in lieu of a log book at the bigger retailers (like Wal-Mart). God knows what database this ends up in.

Oh, and you can only buy the stuff when the pharmacy is open. Sucks when you can't go to sleep because of congestion. Pseudoephedrine works better than the 'substitutes', IMHO.

I hate being treated like a meth dealer when I have a cold.
posted by karson at 11:01 AM on September 27, 2006


Try buying this stuff after the pharmacy closes. In a small town you may be waiting until morning to get any sinus relief.

Sidenote, now the meth fiends will be stealing to support their habit!1!. It's now harder to find the raw ingredients to produce ergo: it will cost more. You really think that's gonna stop them from getting it?
posted by HyperBlue at 11:02 AM on September 27, 2006


Fantastic Frontline on the crystal meth epidemic - really changed my mind on some things.

Watch it online:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meth/
posted by ao4047 at 11:03 AM on September 27, 2006


All this does is make the crank come from mexico instead of here.
posted by cellphone at 11:03 AM on September 27, 2006


Meanwhile, you can still buy all the Yellowjacket ephedrine stimulants you desire from the Quickstop twelve blocks from my home.
posted by NationalKato at 11:05 AM on September 27, 2006


I do like how Claritin D is saying in its ads how it is refusing to change its formula so now you have to ask at the counter.

Funny. When I was last at the pharmacy I was surprised that I had to ask to get Sudafed but they had left Claritin D in the aisles. I wonder if they've "fixed" that now...
posted by vacapinta at 11:05 AM on September 27, 2006


Two comments now, that it's been going in Texas for a year or so...

It just reached my area (Denton) recently! Maybe they were just doing it in parts?
posted by kaseijin at 11:05 AM on September 27, 2006


trying to get more than 8 pills worth without going out every day

That's crazy. We've had logbooks here in Illinois for a while now and I can get 30 tablets at a time.
posted by ao4047 at 11:06 AM on September 27, 2006


Hey, do *I* have a solution for all those meth cookers who now have nothing to do with their cook houses! I mean, never mind that out here they do it all in the hills and shih, but whatever -- Go Drug War, Go!
posted by Ogre Lawless at 11:06 AM on September 27, 2006


I'm just glad they re-legalized ephedrine!
posted by delmoi at 11:07 AM on September 27, 2006


I had presumed the vast majority of meth was imported from mexico regardless, and the only metrics used to determine the effectiveness were the number of labs busted.

Also, 8, 10 pill limits? I could have sworn the last time I got one it was a 20+ pack... on preview, nod to ao4047.
posted by prostyle at 11:07 AM on September 27, 2006


Are America's law more stupid than those of other first world countries, or do we just hear about all the stupid stuff more often?

I know in Canada they lock up some of these drugs, but I am pretty sure there are no limits on how much you can buy.
posted by chunking express at 11:07 AM on September 27, 2006


I don't see how treating everyone like drug dealer will solve the problem.
ID I understand. But I don't have to sign anything when I buy beer, and the only limit on the tequila I purchase is what I can afford. I know it is an old argument, but how many people die from pseudoephedrine and ephedrine versus alcohol.

My wife is allergic to pseudoephedrine, but I still think this is ridiculous.
posted by JeremiahBritt at 11:08 AM on September 27, 2006


I spent enough time researching home-made meth to come to the conclusion that one or two sudafed pills = one dose of meth. Is that about right? I'd initially guessed it was more like 10:1 and couldn't see the point in restricting access.
posted by Nelson at 11:09 AM on September 27, 2006


I'm another person that often needs Sudafed to keep my allergies in check. Especially while flying. It used to be no problem - every airport had shops that sold it.

Not anymore. Now I've got to make sure I carry ample supplies when flying.

And hope that no terrorist does something to cause a ban on little red pills that let you breathe.
posted by bitmage at 11:09 AM on September 27, 2006


Also, 8, 10 pill limits? I could have sworn the last time I got one it was a 20+ pack... on preview, nod to ao4047.

Why shouldn't you be able to buy 50, or a 100? It's a lame law, meant to give people a false sense of security. One of those laws they pass so they can say they are doing something.
posted by chunking express at 11:09 AM on September 27, 2006 [1 favorite]


Let's not stop at pseudophedrine. Let's make sure that anything that can be considered a component in drug production gets taken off the market.

Kerosene, ammonia and anything with sodium bicarbonate (including baking powder) need to be rigorously controlled for their role in the production of cocaine and heroin.

Let's cover all our bases and control all gardening supplies because, after all, you could grow your own pot, poppies and coca leaves.

Seriously, this strategy isn't going to work. Treat the causes as well as the problem.
posted by bryanzera at 11:09 AM on September 27, 2006


Wait, you can make meth from Sudafed and Claritin-D? Thanks for telling me before the weekend- I'm off to Rite Aid!
posted by Dr-Baa at 11:09 AM on September 27, 2006


Not to mention that I used to be able to buy Sudafed at the BJ's Club in 96 tablet packs. Now I'm having to buy little boxes at greater expense.
posted by bitmage at 11:11 AM on September 27, 2006


bryanzera: lets also ban fertilizer, because, you know, you can mix it with diesel and blow up buildings!
posted by mrbill at 11:11 AM on September 27, 2006


They sell Robotussin and Nyquil here that is completely useless -- they're pretty much a placebo now.

right on -- oldskool Nyquil kicked ass, the new formula is just... weak. there was some online petition or something to bring back the old formula. frankly, I'd rather show photo ID and buy medicine that works than keeping my privacy and using some lame-o pill that won't help my ravaged sinuses.

but I agree that this prohibition thing kinda sucks (I confess I'm also in favor of legalizing weed, so I'm certainly not in the mainstream there)
posted by matteo at 11:11 AM on September 27, 2006


(I'm talking about ANFO)
posted by mrbill at 11:12 AM on September 27, 2006


I wonder if this will be as wildly successful as the rest of the War on Drugs(tm).

chunking express writes "Are America's law more stupid than those of other first world countries, or do we just hear about all the stupid stuff more often? "

A little bit of column A, and a little bit of column B.
posted by clevershark at 11:13 AM on September 27, 2006


They've been doing this in Texas for a year or two now.

Actually I'm from Iowa which used to be the meth capital of the U.S. before Origon took our crown. (now we're number two). There have been restrictions on psudoephedrine stuff for quite a while, including voluntary stuff in stores.

It's interesting you bring up Texas, I remember going into a drug store in texas and being shocked to see a big stack of seudafed sitting right in front of the store. I guess they won't be doing that anymore.

But this is a perfect example of why things like this should be done at the state level. Why should people in places without a lot of meth use get the same laws as places with a lot of meth use? That's just silly.

Also, although it's more difficult, you can actually make meth from phenylalanine, which is present in every living cell. Lemon peels are a great source.
posted by delmoi at 11:13 AM on September 27, 2006


One option - see your doctor, get an Rx for pseudoephedrine, have it written for use every 6 hours so they can write for 60-120 tablets at once. It'll be cheaper, generally, also, than buying a bunch of ten-back blister cards. As mathowie mentioned, we've been getting by in Oregon fine with the law and very few people seem to care.

Interestingly, the studies on pseudoephedrine consistently mention its lack of usefulness at treating sinusitus, colds, etc. and more often than no, if you recommend it as a treatment, people call in the next day with symptoms of racing heart, anxiety, etc., so it's a massive pain in the ass mostly. But that doesn't mean that some people don't find it beneficial from a symptomatic perspective. But phenylephrine truly is total shit and known to be so by anyone in the pharm industry. OTC Afrin may be a better option.
posted by docpops at 11:13 AM on September 27, 2006


How did this damn culture of fear ever get started? This kind of shit didn't go on in the 1950s... and people then were WAY more conservative than they are now. It doesn't even have anything to do with 9/11!
posted by rolypolyman at 11:14 AM on September 27, 2006


To what extent is there cross-location sharing of these logbooks, paper or electronic? I mean, I have a CVS or a Walgreens on almost every couple of blocks where I live. How feasible would it be to pick up the maximum from one retailer and then immediately go to another and so on?
posted by NationalKato at 11:14 AM on September 27, 2006


bryanzera writes "Let's cover all our bases and control all gardening supplies because, after all, you could grow your own pot, poppies and coca leaves"

You need water to grow all that stuff, so obviously you should have to jump through all kinds of moronic legal hoops to buy that too!
posted by clevershark at 11:15 AM on September 27, 2006


Oh and I'd just like to take this opportunity to brag about how I never get colds or stuffy noses so this law doesn't really effect me too much.
posted by delmoi at 11:15 AM on September 27, 2006


You can get 30 pills, sure. But that's it. For 30 days. And in the store near my house they only carry the small boxes, no large ones, even though they used to.

So yeah - 8 pills at a time.

And now, I'll only be able to do that 3 times in a month.

We're fucked.
posted by OhPuhLeez at 11:16 AM on September 27, 2006


bryanzera, that was one of the main points of my Wired article.
posted by digaman at 11:17 AM on September 27, 2006


How did this damn culture of fear ever get started? This kind of shit didn't go on in the 1950s... and people then were WAY more conservative than they are now. It doesn't even have anything to do with 9/11!

People were busy worrying about commies and uppity Negroes. And the philipinos were taking all the white women!

But seriously people were just as retarded then as they are now, if not more so.
posted by delmoi at 11:17 AM on September 27, 2006


digaman:
Good article. I was pointed to it a few months ago when I was looking around for a non-sucky chemistry set, and it was helpful. So, thanks.

This is where we go next :-)
posted by -harlequin- at 11:18 AM on September 27, 2006


I'm just glad they re-legalized ephedrine!

yeah, if we could buy white crosses again, even in small quantities, i would celebrate.
posted by snofoam at 11:19 AM on September 27, 2006


There will doubtless be some number of allergy-sufferers who will find themselves turning to benadryl or other drowsiness-inducing allergy medicines. And it's a cinch that those people will be involved in a higher than average number of auto and heavy-machinery accidents.

How many people are we willing to kill for the War on Some Drugs?
posted by Western Infidels at 11:20 AM on September 27, 2006 [1 favorite]


The drugs are not illegal. If you really have a problem with stuffy noses I think you can just buy more from multiple stores. As long as you don't have the other ingredients for meth (iodine and phosphorus), it shouldn't be a problem
posted by delmoi at 11:20 AM on September 27, 2006


Meth changed everything.
posted by Divine_Wino at 11:22 AM on September 27, 2006


How did this damn culture of fear ever get started? This kind of shit didn't go on in the 1950s... and people then were WAY more conservative than they are now. It doesn't even have anything to do with 9/11!

Also - why is it such a US thing? Certainly, this sort of crap goes on elsewhere, but in the USA it's happening at a whole 'nother level. Just crossing the border to Canada, right next door, people seem more relaxed about... pretty much everything.
posted by -harlequin- at 11:24 AM on September 27, 2006


We've had these restrictions in Kentucky for a few years now. Having pretty strong seasonal allergies, I've certainly been impacted. It takes longer to stop at the store and buy the stuff, they don't tend to stock as much, and what's there is usually the smaller boxes of the name-brand medicines.

The net result of this is you pay more for your medecine, and have to make more frequent trips to get it. That said, it's really not all that bad, and while I'd like to see things go back to the way they were, where I can stop at Wal-Mart at 3 AM and buy a big pack of the generic, that isn't going to happen.
posted by RobotMonkey at 11:24 AM on September 27, 2006


Like the people responsible for large scale meth production and distrobution won't be able to get their hands on the ingredients that they need to produce their product. The consumer is being punished here for the actions of a criminal element, and I find that to be rediculous.
posted by smackwich at 11:26 AM on September 27, 2006


delmoi:

I would think the entire purpose of an ID-checked logging of the purchase is to stop people buying from multiple stores. (Well ok, they won't be stopped, they'll just risk get their names red-flagged, and added to another one of those incompetent databases that you're not allowed to know that you're on, and have no way to get off, but get hounded wherever you go because of it)
posted by -harlequin- at 11:26 AM on September 27, 2006


Meth has ruined a lot of lives and sadly the biggest opponent of passing this regulation was the big pharma pill makers themselves. Gee, I wonder why.

The point of this regulation is to drive up the street price which will decrease use thus a few less lives ruined. You can not rely on state-by-state laws to do this because the pills are bought in one state, sold to a cooker in another state, and the meth is sold anywhere. Now of course the supply side will shift to Mexico but still street price will increase.
posted by StarForce5 at 11:27 AM on September 27, 2006


Weird thing is that on the Sudafed PE boxes, they don't list dosage instructions. I'd been taking two at a time, like I did with regular Sudafed. (I've been taking Sudafed for chronic sinusitis from the time it was still a prescription-only drug.) I'd been getting gawdawful sinus pain and was sneezing blood, and I finally checked out their website...turns out you're only supposed to take one of the PE pills at a time. Why isn't that mentioned on the package??
posted by Oriole Adams at 11:27 AM on September 27, 2006


The drugs are not illegal. If you really have a problem with stuffy noses I think you can just buy more from multiple stores. As long as you don't have the other ingredients for meth (iodine and phosphorus), it shouldn't be a problem
posted by delmoi at 11:20 AM PST on September 27


Oh, this is interesting--is it a crime to pharmacy-shop? And where does the info go that the stores collect--to drugmakers who then bombard you with unwanted ads? The DEA?
posted by etaoin at 11:27 AM on September 27, 2006


crunchland writes "my wife, who suffers from allergies, can only buy one package of 10 pills at a time. She complains bitterly about it, and wonders why the drug companies who make the pills haven't pulled the usual strings in Washington that is limiting the sales of their product."

They get to sell just as much of their product but in smaller quantities and at a higher price per item, and so at greater profit, so why on earth would they be against this?
posted by clevershark at 11:29 AM on September 27, 2006


I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand it will be good if this law can actually slow down meth production/sale/abuse. Since it's the United States government doing it, however, I doubt it'll have any impact.

On the other hand, this 'logbook' is too Orwellian for me. What about crunchland's wife? Will her routine of being more of these pills put her on some special 'list'? How will these logbooks be used, and for what purpose? Can the government snatch these logs whenever they want and use them to acquire warrants?
posted by triolus at 11:29 AM on September 27, 2006


Er, buying, not being. I hope she doesn't turn into a pill.
posted by triolus at 11:30 AM on September 27, 2006


I was furious when Tennessee did this. Seriously, it's like lining up the whole class for a paddling when no one will fess up to being the kid who peed in the teacher's coffee. We all get punished just because a few people are stupid. I'm not saying meth isn't a problem, but this isn't the solution.

One element about this that amuses me is that Tennessee is notorious for having some of the worst air quality in relation to pollen and sinus issues, and yet getting sinus medication is like pulling teeth.

Shortly before the law went into effect, I went to the drugstore and bought 20 packets of Tylenol Sinus. Cause that the drug that worst best on most of my smaller sinus infections. The checkout girl just looked at me and asked why I needed so many. I told her I was stocking up so when the law was past I wouldn't have to worry about being snotty at 4 in the morning and unable to deal with it. 5 people in the line behind me all went back and got handfuls of sinus meds themselves. We cleaned out the entire stock.
posted by teleri025 at 11:30 AM on September 27, 2006


I've heard that meth production is increasingly moving to Mexico anyway.
posted by Slothrup at 11:33 AM on September 27, 2006


Wow, I've got a box of 48 here, and now I feel like a major dealer.

It sickens me to think that my name is in database of potential meth manufactures, when my only crime is to have nasty sinus headaches that last for weeks, and Sudafed is the only remedy.

And I see that even the liquid cold medicines containg PE have been hidden behind the shelves. Is it really so easy to extract the PE from liquid goo?
posted by malocchio at 11:34 AM on September 27, 2006



If you've ever seen a tweakers lab, their house, or had to clean it up or their broken extended family you'd probably think a little differently about it.


That doesn't mean I'd want to ban allergy pills. People who do drugs know what they're getting themselves into.

In no way is this worth the inconvenience to the rest of us. And it won't do a damned thing to stop the manufacture of meth.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 11:34 AM on September 27, 2006


Well, it's back to heroin for me.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:36 AM on September 27, 2006


The point of this regulation is to drive up the street price which will decrease use thus a few less lives ruined.

That is bad logic, meth is HIGHLY addictive. Raising street prices is likely to increase crime, not decrease addicton rates.

It squeezes out small-time manufacturers, effectively subsidizing the mob.

I'm amazed people would bother to ship meth from Mexico, it's dirt cheap and widely manufactured all through the midwest, and has been for decades. It can be manufactured in many different ways.

I had friends that did meth all through high school and college, they've all either quit or ended up in jail. I think it's funny that now that it's reached the coasts, there's so much attention on it.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:36 AM on September 27, 2006


Faces of Meth [discussion]

My Addicted Son. A Father's Story of His Son's Addiction to Methamphetamine. [discussion]

America's Most Dangerous Drug [discussion]
posted by ericb at 11:37 AM on September 27, 2006


pay cash, use fake name/ID? sounds like the way to go from now on. i'm already on enough lists.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 11:37 AM on September 27, 2006


Meanwhile, you can still buy all the Yellowjacket ephedrine stimulants you desire from the Quickstop twelve blocks from my home

I never quite understood that decision, if the end goal is really to take meth precursors off the market. Ephedrine remains readily available.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:38 AM on September 27, 2006


People in Bakersfield (Oildale reprezentin' too yo!) know just how much this legislation will help matters.
posted by WolfDaddy at 11:39 AM on September 27, 2006


I have a friend who is prescribed Adderall. In generic form, it is labeled as "amphetamine salts". Since we have had these pseudoephedrine restrictions her in Texas for a while now, it's actually easier for her to go in and get REAL amphetamines than it is to get cold medicine. They don't need to see her ID when she picks up her prescription—they only want to see it if she wants to buy pseudoephedrine.

This legislation is doing nothing but wasting the time of innocent people. The meth labs are just going to move to Mexico/Canada.
posted by scottj at 11:39 AM on September 27, 2006


I've found that I can find some pseudoephedrine products in my local dollar stores, without restriction.

This is annoying and a general pain. I will admit, I'm amused that some rural drug causes everyone to panic and to start logging sudafed purchases, while the drugs that are so common here in my city are ignored, as usual.

At least, I try to be amused, while I'm waiting in line to buy a small, over-priced package.
posted by QIbHom at 11:41 AM on September 27, 2006


there will be limits on the number of tablets of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, or phenylpropanolamine

You can still get phenylpropanolamine? In what?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:41 AM on September 27, 2006


I'm sure this is going to happen in a few months:

SCENE: A 24-hour pharmacy, 3:00 AM. Enter FAINT OF BUTT, dripping copious quantities of mucous.

FoB: Eggzguze be, I deed do buy sub code bedizid.

Clerk: What?

FoB: *SNUUUUUCK!* Excuse me, I need to buy some cold medicine.

Clerk: Sorry, I can't sell you any because of the meth laws, and the pharmacist isn't here.

FoB: Well, call the pharmacist. I need to get back to sleep.

Clerk: No. You'll just have to come back tomorrow morning.

FoB: [Inhales deeply, and breathes huge lungfull of germ-ridden air right into clerk's face, guaranteeing spread of contagion. Exeunt.]
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:42 AM on September 27, 2006 [1 favorite]


About ten years ago I had sinus problems and I took loads and loads of Sudafed. So much that it stopped really working for me. Actually I think I developed an addiction to it. This is kind of aprops of nothing and, of course, I don't think that restricting access to Sudafed is really any kind of solution to the problem but I thought I'd mention my old habit...
posted by ob at 11:45 AM on September 27, 2006


StarForce5: Now of course the supply side will shift to Mexico but still street price will increase.

Why would this be the case? Other goods made in Mexico are cheaper than similar products made in the US.
posted by peeedro at 11:46 AM on September 27, 2006


For those who don't live so close to Mexico, you can always come to Canada.

And thanks America for making my business trips even more of a pain. Although I can buy Aleve over the counter, which should offset that. And many of your headache pills have more caffeine in them than I get in a month, so I guess I'll still be able to stay awake. SO I guess you're not all bad.
posted by GuyZero at 11:52 AM on September 27, 2006


This happened to me when I was trying to buy two boxes of those cold-reliever popsicles for my kids. I was wondering how many boxes of watered down popsicles one would have to buy to distill enough medication out of them to make any meth. A lot more than two is my guess.
posted by thekilgore at 11:55 AM on September 27, 2006


IM IN UR FARMASEE KILLIN UR LIBURTEES!
posted by blue_beetle at 11:55 AM on September 27, 2006


Great. Brace yourselves for an influx of ONLIN3 PH4RMACY - BUY SUD4FED spam.
posted by bhance at 11:59 AM on September 27, 2006 [1 favorite]


The only solution that will ever work for meth is the same as it always has been for other "controlled substances":

Legalize it. Regulate it. Tax it.
posted by Ynoxas at 12:10 PM on September 27, 2006


As long as you don't have the other ingredients for meth (iodine and phosphorus), it shouldn't be a problem
posted by delmoi at 11:20 AM PST


WOOT! The Trifecta! Iodine for kiddy magic shows/starch detection.....phosphorus in the fertlizer, and some psudoepherdrine for the wake up effect. All I need to do is save $1 and $5 bills from my change for the strip clubs and as a change for bill changing machines and I'm all ready to be accused of making meth! Thanks for the good news delmoi.

As for the rest of ya, have you considered a neti pot?
posted by rough ashlar at 12:36 PM on September 27, 2006


Blue Beetle WINS! GOALGOALGOAL!
posted by Bageena at 12:38 PM on September 27, 2006


I could take crunchland's post above, and claim it as my own. I have the exact same circumstances, right down the the wife who complains bitterly about the Washington and the Pharm companies.

Not that I blame her, if i was being told that in order to breath for 5 months out of the year, I was going to have to jump through hoops, I'd be pretty pissed as well.

My question is, Since we know that this won't do anything to stop meth production, how long will they keep a worthless ordinance like this in place?

/looks at current U.S. Drug policy.

Oh. crap. nevermind.
posted by quin at 12:43 PM on September 27, 2006


As an allergy sufferer in Illinois--where we've had these restrictions for at least a year now—I'm failing to feel outraged about these restrictions. I’ve still been able to obtain sufficient amounts of the products I need, and I also remain relieved (figuratively and literally) that effective pseudoephedrine products can still be purchased without a prescription--and the expensive doctor’s visit that accompanies one. Granted, the new laws are not going to stop meth production any more than alcohol age-restrictions stop teenage drinking. But if the new laws make it harder for you and I to obtain large amounts of these drugs, they make it harder for meth makers to do the same, and that’s okay with me. (And to the outraged folks, the sinister logbook being created by your local pharmacy is not going to be very useful to the government's Orwellian plans against law-abiding snifflers, since come cold and flu season, those records will likely be about as useful as the local White Pages--Makes a good booster seat?)
posted by applemeat at 12:47 PM on September 27, 2006


Correct me if I'm wrong... but doesn't the pseudoephedrine basically keep the meth lab from blowing up? I always figured that this law would just result in more dangerous production standards.

I worked in a hardware store for a long time, and more than occasionally (bi-weekly or more) we would have people who would buy huge amounts of denatured alcohol. I mean, some of these people are so obvious that it seems limiting us to 10 pills of pseudoephedrine is stupid if we paid attention to other lab ingredients.
posted by blackvectrex at 1:15 PM on September 27, 2006


And I quote:

One haggard-looking woman sitting inside a Portland trailer says, "I think meth has destroyed this community. I think, in all reality, I think they need to take a bomb and blow it all up. It's that bad."

Maybe not.

In fact, meth use during the past four years has either declined or stayed flat, according to two major national drug-use studies.


Read the whole article here.
posted by pdb at 1:28 PM on September 27, 2006


Here's how this same situation worked out here in Australia.

Here, it's the bikie (biker) gangs that're usually responsible for bulk speedy-stuff manufacturing. They take... a dim view... of anybody cutting in on their business.

Anyway, years ago, you'd just have a couple of big hairy dudes wandering peacefully into your pharmacy, and they'd buy a whole pallet of Sudafed for cash money, say thank you, and leave.

So the government made it illegal to buy pseudoephedrine without signing a form, and imposed quantity limits, and blah blah blah, just like in the USA.

So the bikies started doing their shopping 12 hours earlier, without the cash but with a sledgehammer.

So more than a few pharmacies said "the hell with this", and stopped stocking pseudoephedrine entirely, putting signs in the window to that effect.

Speed remains widely available, and cheap. People with runny noses wipe them on their sleeves. Well, unless they just buy some speed - a little lasts a long time if you're only using enough to decongest yourself.

Hurrah!
posted by dansdata at 1:32 PM on September 27, 2006


ao4047 what did you learn?

I was annoyed by the pseudophedrine restrictions, but after watching that, I'm really pissed off.

The big labs used to get powder directly from a pharm supplier in India. It was easiest to buy it with US fronts, ship it to Mexico to make crystal meth, then smuggle it back!

When that was cut off & only pill makers could buy the powder, they bought hundreds of cases of pills *with no binders* in the plainest, cheapest bottles possible. Law enforcement would find abandoned labs with piles of bottles with the bottoms cut off (faster than unscrewing I suppose).

The home kitchen labs using "smurfed" sudafed tablets (smurfs go from store to store buying a few boxes at each) have only ever produced a small amount of meth and not very good stuff at that.

Now here's the kicker- the doc. covers an Oregon paper that finds a correlation between meth potency and meth addiction (admittance to clinics, I think). When the pharm powder link is cut, addiction goes down.

So the over the counter stuff never was causing a big problem.

They show one guy (pharm or law enforcement or rehab counselor- I forget) saying meth addiction is so bad that he'd do anything (referring to stronger controls on over-the-counter meds) to stop it.

This is idiotic. Everyone should lay off poor sinusitis sufferers and go find the big labs. Shit, the home cookers can probably only keep a few people supplied & then maybe not enough to ruin their lives.

Maybe that's the problem-- functional users/addicts might be having too much fun (like pot smokers and heroin addicts with a good supply). Drugs are *evil*. Just thinking "drug" turns you into a raving lunatic.

Also, home cookers are too small-time to bribe lawmakers.

--

When my little family all has colds and I don't want to have to drag my 6 year old along & hand him $7 to buy his own medicine, I can only buy a few days worth. I can't imagine a gaggle of kids of different ages who need different dosages.
posted by morganw at 1:45 PM on September 27, 2006


If you've ever seen a tweakers lab, their house, or had to clean it up or their broken extended family you'd probably think a little differently about it.

If I thought this would do anything about all that, I might.

Knowing that you can buy toluene without too much difficulty I'm pretty sure that not much is going to change except for people with colds.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 1:48 PM on September 27, 2006


This is a serious question. Is there a real epidemic of sinus-related illness in the States? I thought this would be a topic of some interest, but the sheer numbers of MeFites or their relatives with a serious need for this stuff surprises me. Anyone got some good stat-based cause-and-effect for some environmental pollutants, please?
posted by imperium at 1:52 PM on September 27, 2006


Watch out for the demon meth! It crawls through your window at night and possess you! Oh please.

Just let us buy our damn Sudafed.
posted by Justinian at 2:03 PM on September 27, 2006


This has been happening in New Zealand for a while. It is a bit of a hassle, but vaguely understandable. There is the slight problem that when you're really sick and desperate some Coldrex, you kind of look liked a methed out nutter. I do, anyway.
posted by Wataki at 2:19 PM on September 27, 2006


So the over the counter stuff never was causing a big problem.

as far as the amount of meth produced, you're probably right, although it's been enough to contribute to the problem

but the real problem is the environmental concerns ... houses and apartments are basically unhealthy after a meth-lab's set up and a landlord can't rent the place back out until it's been cleaned up, which is a major expense ... add to that chemicals been dumped anywhere anyone feels like it and seeping into the ground water and you have some real problems

it's only a short time before someone works out a way to make psuedoephedrine in a makeshift lab ... maybe they already are ... and then, we're right back where we were
posted by pyramid termite at 2:21 PM on September 27, 2006


digaman, is that the same Bob Lazar in your article who is also a bit of a UFO "celebrity" ?
posted by Megafly at 2:33 PM on September 27, 2006


applemeat writes: "I'm failing to feel outraged about these restrictions. I’ve still been able to obtain sufficient amounts of the products I need"

I think you meant:
"I’ve still been able to obtain sufficient amounts of the products I need, therefore, I'm failing to feel outraged about these restrictions."

If it were you who had to figure out how to treat misery-making allergies for five children and both of their parents, you'd be outraged. If you lived in a more rural area and now only had access to the medications that worked for you during the 78 hours a week that the WalMart pharmacy was open (because it's the only thing in the county open that long) and were simply screwed for the other 90 hours a week, you'd be outraged. If your legitimate, legal, medically appropriate use of drugs was being artificially constrained because of the illegal activities of people you have never met and may not even exist anywhere near you, you would be outraged.

But you should be outraged because this is another aspect of the war on some drugs having a direct effect on the liberty of every American in the interest of constraining the activity of a very small minority. (No matter how huge the meth problem may be, the people making meth are <0.1% of the population. Perspective!) The quality of life for many people will be significantly degraded. People interested in continuing to break the law with regard to meth manufacture, sale or use will do so, and will now go to new and perhaps more dangerous lengths in order to do so.

I'm waiting for a pharmacist to get into a brawl with someone who can't breathe and can't see straight with a pounding sinus headache but is refused the Sudafed that would help them because their driver's license is from out of state, or expired or was forgotten at home in the headache haze. I'm waiting for a pharmacist to be shot and perhaps killed by some desperate meth maker who owes someone drugs as payment of a debt, and holds a pharmacy up, not for cash, but for the drugs. It'll happen eventually.
posted by Dreama at 2:42 PM on September 27, 2006


"Meth is really bad" does not equal "Restrict access to pseudoephedrine"

There is no, zero, bupkiss, zippo, nil, nada, rien, zed evidence that restricting consumer access has had an effect on the level of methamphetamine availability. And even if it did, there is no evidence that that would ameliorate the problems that meth causes.

Limiting consumer access to pseudoephedrine is one of those hysteric anti-drug reactions that does nothing while irritating vast swaths of ordinary citizens. Brought to you by the anti-street drug industry and your favorite politicians.
posted by Mental Wimp at 2:45 PM on September 27, 2006


This is a serious question. Is there a real epidemic of sinus-related illness in the States?

Come to Central Texas in January.

Not only is there as hassle in getting the "good stuff" to help with cedar fever, often times the pharmacy is sold out of the stuff you need. You don't find out until after you've stood in line and waited for the pharmacist to go back to the back shelf to get it. I went apeshit at Walgreens because they have cards on the shelf for Sudafed that you're supposed to take back to the back, but didn't actually sync the cards to the inventory.
posted by birdherder at 2:47 PM on September 27, 2006


restricting consumer access has had an effect on the level of methamphetamine availability

Exactly. I join ao4047 in recommending watching the Frontline documentary: The Meth Epidemic
posted by ericb at 2:52 PM on September 27, 2006


I wonder what the next drug 'epidemic' will be? Stay tuned to the nearest TIME cover story.

Let's see, we've gone through: pot (30s-current), qualudes/acid (70s), cocaine (early 80s), crack (late 80s), heroin (early 90s), crack (late 90s) and now meth. Here's a news flash: meth was around for the majority of that time period. And people were using it for off label purposes.

It's not like any measure we've taken has had an impact on those other 'epidemics.' The only reason that meth gets a lot of media-play, more so than the crack 'epidemic,' is that it affects whites (predominantly poor whites).

Make no mistake, this measure will do abso-fucking nothing to remove meth from the pipes of its users. Mexico will continue to supply the lion's share of meth consumed in the US (like they have for some time). The only thing this will do is to reduce the domestic production of meth.

A waste of time and effort. It has all the smack of masturbatory self-congratulation for some politician/corporate-hooker.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 3:19 PM on September 27, 2006


FYI, this type of law originated here in Oklahoma.

Yeah, I'm in Oklahoma. Might explain my moods.
posted by landis at 3:53 PM on September 27, 2006


Drugs are bad, m'kay?
posted by oncogenesis at 4:18 PM on September 27, 2006


Digaman thanks for the article on Wired and the links ; it is nice to see the learning angle being represented at all ; that's not only security-by-obscurity , that's presumed-security-by-ignorance, which is far worse.

[i]One of those laws they pass so they can say they are doing something.[/i]

Yes, with a second effect of making the production and sale of the substance on black market a lot more profiteable, while removing it from the hand of the many little producers.


If my memory serves, I remember seeing a documentary in which one of the components of meth (don't ask me) was also produced in India and then landed in U.S. possibily for legitimate uses ; also worth mentioning , the assertion that that component ins't easily synthetized unless you have very specific knowledge and instruments to do that (as opposed to extraction and purification done in home labs ?) ..so I guess a big lab is being built in Colombia as we speak.

[i]Now of course the supply side will shift to Mexico but still street price will increase.[/i]

Have you ever been addicted ? When I smoked cigarettes, I used to go buy them in the middle of the night and freezing, so much I wanted a smoke. I can't imagine what a meth addict could do, IF it is as bad as it seems.
posted by elpapacito at 4:47 PM on September 27, 2006


Ops forgot mentioning: meth users should inspire misery, pain, compassion...not hate, fear, disgust. Each meth addict should be received by a community (and not a special, secluded one) like the NYers apparently did in 9/11 with themselves.
posted by elpapacito at 4:51 PM on September 27, 2006


wonders why the drug companies who make the pills haven't pulled the usual strings in Washington that is limiting the sales of their product

Pfizer and Bristol-Myers quietly but emphatically opposed restrictions ... until they were assured of approval for the phenylephrine (PE) reformulations of their products. Then they emphatically and publicly supported the restrictions.

The Wall Street Journal, of all places, had a great article on this (no longer available). Similar:
Political Pressure Drives Drug Industry To Change: New Cold Pills Strike At Home Meth Labs

Steve Suo's meth epidemic stories

I used to buy the stuff in 500 pill jars with only a blister protecting the non-child-proof cap.
posted by dhartung at 4:54 PM on September 27, 2006


These laws have been very effective.

At putting meth production into the hands of the Mexican mafia...


So for the meth user on the street the quality should go up ... right?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 5:04 PM on September 27, 2006


Or hey, if you don't want to wait in line and show ID and sign log books, you can do what all the meth manufacturers do, and use your 9mm instead!

/ sarcasm
// not fighting-words
posted by theducks at 5:08 PM on September 27, 2006


It would be interesting to change the word "Meth" in the above arguments to "Guns". The same logic applies to both issues. Then poll all to above contributors on their opinions on gun control and see if their logic changes.
posted by Jumpin Jack Flash at 5:31 PM on September 27, 2006


meth was around for the majority of that time period.

Hitler's Drugged Soldiers

Hitler and Meth

Kamikaze pilots and meth.

etc.
posted by ericb at 6:25 PM on September 27, 2006


dreama - I'm waiting for a pharmacist to be shot and perhaps killed by some desperate meth maker who owes someone drugs as payment of a debt, and holds a pharmacy up, not for cash, but for the drugs.

we've already had people hold up pharmacies for oxycontin where i live, although no one got shot

i_am_a_jedi - Here's a news flash: meth was around for the majority of that time period.

very true ... in fact, i occaisionally snorted it ... but see, the difference is, people were snorting it back then ... now they're cooking it differently and smoking it ... and it's MUCH worse that way

(by the way, it's nasty stuff - i don't recommend it)
posted by pyramid termite at 6:27 PM on September 27, 2006


BTW -- premiering Wednesday, October 18, at 8 p.m. ET/PT on National Geographic Explorer -- World's Most Dangerous Drug.
"Methamphetamine has caused a global drug epidemic, with more users than cocaine and heroin combined. Easy to obtain and relatively inexpensive, it is more powerful than alcohol, heroin or cocaine, and is considered one of the hardest addictions to quit. NGC correspondent Lisa Ling infiltrates this underworld to find out why many are calling 'meth' the world’s most dangerous drug."
posted by ericb at 6:28 PM on September 27, 2006


Being a presumed at a pharmacy is nothing new for me. A family member of mine is diabetic and I regularly buy syringes and Humulin (sp?) for them.

So one time the Walgreens pharmacist made me sign a logbook and asked to LOOK AT MY ARMS. Cause, you know, he thought I was a drug addict and wanted the syringes for heroin. Or whatever drug.

Haven't been back to Walgreens since. And the other pharmacies around here don't even make you sign a logbook when buying syringes, so WTF?
posted by aerotive at 6:39 PM on September 27, 2006


(Being a presumed) criminal...
posted by aerotive at 6:43 PM on September 27, 2006


The federal law was passed as a part of H.R.3199 aka USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 [UPIRA-2005], Section 711 (to which I can't figure out how to link due to some genius web design at the Library of Congress), e.1:
"It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly or intentionally purchase at retail during a 30 day period more than 9 grams of ephedrine base, pseudoephedrine base, or phenylpropanolamine base....
"the quantity of such base sold at retail ... may not, for any purchaser, exceed a daily amount of 3.6 grams....
For those who take 24-hour Claritin-D (240mg pseudoephedrine), this amounts to no more than 15 pills on any given day nor more than 37 pills in any given month. Good luck at finding a 15 pill package anymore as most stores only carry 10 pill packs (I'm guessing this is to simplify compliance with some state law). Note that unless you purchase the 5 pill pack (extra bonus $$) it is impossible to legally buy more than 30 pills in a given month. God forbid that you come down with a cold and need to purchase generic NyQuil (~600mg Pseudoephedrine in one small bottle).

Note that the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 was included in neither the version of UPIRA-2005 as passed by the house nor as passed by the senate. It was added as a "compromise" to reconcile the two different versions of the bill.

.

If this irks you as much as it does me, let your representative and senator know on November 7th.
posted by Mr Stickfigure at 7:04 PM on September 27, 2006


Signing the book is hardly inconvenient and if you don't want to do that there are new unregukated psuedophed versions available. However, F the methheads who drove us to this point.
posted by caddis at 7:55 PM on September 27, 2006


I have the perfect solution: put something in the sudafed/etc that makes meth absolutely deadly.

Kills two birds with one stone that way: a shitload of useless meth heads will be offed, much to all our relief; and the drug can remain on the shelves.

Honestly, I'm about as pro-drug as they come: I think all drugs should be legalized; take the profits and put it into education and addiction counselling.

But FFS, one has to be abysmally, terminally stupid to do some of those drugs, meth included. So stupid that we're collectively better off without people that stupid. Time to winnow the crop.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:59 PM on September 27, 2006


Well, FWIW, I am a semi-recovered meth addict myself.

What I mean by semi-recovered is that, in the 20+ years since I quit, I would be extremely hard pressed to refuse if someone were to offer me some. I've been clean for that 20+ years, but it's quite literally a week - by - week process even now.

The only way I've managed to beat it? I puritanically avoid any chances to be exposed to it.

It's effects on people? There are episodes in my life that, thanks to that foul compound, I cannot tell to the very closest people in my life.

I, for one, would love to see the stuff fall off the face of the earth...
posted by Samizdata at 8:47 PM on September 27, 2006


FFF -

By the way there, chum...

I'm not stupid. Never have been. Made some stupid choices, but so have we all.

Do me a favor, eh? Take your self-righteousness and place it right up there next by your head, where no sun shines, will you?
posted by Samizdata at 8:51 PM on September 27, 2006


No prob'.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:16 PM on September 27, 2006


Yep, five fresh fish really brought out the asshole in this thread.
posted by Justinian at 10:19 PM on September 27, 2006


Sorry -

Lost it a bit there. All due apologies to FFF as well as all and sundry.

A sensitive topic, and a miserable week to boot (not the least of which was the loss of my cat)...

Don't want to be lumped in with the flamers. (grin)
posted by Samizdata at 10:56 PM on September 27, 2006


Mea culpa. I ranted a little too harshly. The drug is just so damn harmful to everyone who comes in contact with it or a user. I simply can not imagine choosing it in preference to not choosing it. There are endless better choices available.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:15 AM on September 28, 2006


There's no doubt that meth messes up the lives of a lot of people. But I still don't understand the idea that many people have that it's some sort of demon substance that instantly turns you into a ravening meth zombie. The reason meth is so problematic is that its dirt fuckin' cheap so anybody can get their hands on a lot of it.

You need cash money to have a decent cocaine addiction, but anybody can get hooked on the meth! That doesn't make meth somehow evil, it just makes it cheap.
posted by Justinian at 12:35 AM on September 28, 2006


This isn't about meth. Like so many have pointed out, it's not going to effective in curbing meth production (and I agree completely that meth is a horrible drug), it's just going to create an even bigger, more lucrative, and menacing black market.

Like the "war on drugs" itself, this is fundamentally PR stunt, designed to make us look the other way while our civil rights (not to mention our dignity and, for that matter, our capacity to breath without our mouths hanging permanently open) are slowly stripped away, one trivial little law & one trivial little wait in line at the pharmacy & one trivial little log-book & one trivial little id-check at a time.

Meanwhile, drug-lords get richer, corrupt politicians gain more capital, and well-to-do businessmen with the right connections can still get prescriptions for big-pharma drugs that bear some striking similarities to meth.
posted by treepour at 2:42 AM on September 28, 2006


One minor bit of good news from all this is it got me to try guaefenesin at a pharmacist's suggestion, and that works better for me than pseudoephedrine ever did. I can go through a head cold with my thumb on the fast-forward button now. But I'm annoyed that other people are getting this kind of aggravation on top of colds and allergy symptoms.
posted by pax digita at 3:05 AM on September 28, 2006


FFF's point was perhaps a little coarse, but not totally without merit.

Given the amount that is known about meth and the dangers associated with it, it would be an exceedingly boneheaded choice for someone to purposefully choose that drug for their altered states as opposed to a number of other superior choices. Those who are part of the drug culture should be even more aware of this than the average layman.

It's not like LSD in the 60's when someone might legitimately have no idea what is is or what it does.

Meth is well know, very public, very visible, and easily understood by virtually everyone.

So yes, a person would fit my personal description of "stupid" if they voluntarily chose to take meth.

Someone would also fit my personal description of "smart" if they recognized the predicament they were in and got clean.
posted by Ynoxas at 7:32 AM on September 28, 2006


Those "Faces of Meth" galleries are a good deterrent. I was planning to make a snarky comment about how meth makes you get bad haircuts, but it's just too scary.
posted by aliasless at 8:00 AM on September 28, 2006


What treepour says, too.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:55 AM on September 28, 2006


So yes, a person would fit my personal description of "stupid" if they voluntarily chose to take meth.

Ever smelled it being smoked? Truly foul, like burning styrofoam or tires, but sucked deep into your lungs. I have to imagine that people usually get started by snorting it first, because that smoke is downright disgusting.

(never done it btw, can't imagine why so many of my friends do)
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:45 AM on September 28, 2006


Is it bad that I don't really care about people doing meth? I've tried it before and I wasn't a fan.... same goes for coke. If others try it and like it and can't manage to keep it under control, then they have issues that probably don't even stem from the drugs and they need help anyways. *shrugs*
posted by Bageena at 1:09 PM on September 28, 2006


« Older The Sony Reader is finally available for purchase....  |  Not your ordinary mud volcano.... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments