Showing ID & signing in to buy OTC cold medicines?
#1
Greetings, all,

I'm curious what people think about a proposed change to Michigan law, to require people to show an ID and sign a log-book to buy some over-the-counter cold medicines.

http://lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/...D=7320515524613 [this might disappear one of these days, if it gets moved to their archival service, so I appended the text of the article below]


Personally, even though Meth is a real problem, and the reason for proposing this is "good," I think this is a bad idea. I mean, come on. Not even cigarette smokers have to sign a registry! :whistling:

Seriously, this means anyone who wants to buy the most common OTC decongestant for an episode of hay fever or a cold, or, I think, some antihistamines, will have to show an ID and register. Am I the only one who thinks that's a little "Big Brother-ish?"

I am already limited to buying two "containers" at a time of the antihistamine I usually buy, because it can be used as a precursor for some other illegal drug (that's about a 3 week to two month supply, depending on the size of the "container"); now I will have to show an ID and sign a log book when I want to buy some Sudafed (or the generic version)?

All because "meth makes users paranoid, they may hesitate to show ID or sign a log to purchase decongestants." !?!

It boggles my mind; where will it stop?

I tend to hate the phrase "slippery slope" but it comes to mind here.

Regards,

Dako-ta



=================================================
Anti-meth bill limits sales of cold pills

Supporters say restrictions will curb drug labs


By David Eggert
Associated Press


An everyday remedy for the common cold is the must-have ingredient in methamphetamine - a highly addictive narcotic cooked in houses, hotel rooms, even vehicles.

That's why limiting the sale of decongestants such as Sudafed, Claritin-D and other medicines containing pseudoephedrine can drastically reduce the number of dangerous meth labs sprouting up across Michigan, state lawmakers and law enforcement officials say.

They want products with ephedrine or pseudoephedrine as the sole active ingredient to be kept behind the counter or within 20 feet of an attendant. Gelcaps and liquid forms of the same medicines would be exempt because only the tablet form of the drugs can be converted to meth.

Under proposed legislation, customers would be required to show a valid ID and sign a log book indicating the amount they buy.

Police hope that disrupting the supply of the key ingredient could make meth production more difficult and the drug less available.

A similar tactic has netted quick results in Oklahoma, home to a tough law restricting the sale of cold and allergy medicines.

But in Michigan, the idea is drawing opposition from retailers who would be responsible for monitoring the sales.

"Retailers will take the abuse when their poor customers are so angry they have to jump through all these hoops to buy cough syrup," said Linda Gobler, president of the Michigan Grocers Association.

Proponents say the legislation is not too much to ask.

"It may be an inconvenience for members of the general public who are using the products legitimately," said Det. Lt. Tony Saucedo, commander of the Michigan State Police methamphetamine team. "But it's a small price to pay if we can control meth labs here in Michigan."


Meth takes toll

Meth is not yet the epidemic that it is in other states. But its prevalence is growing as production moves east and north nationally. It's the No. 1 drug problem in southwest Michigan, the state's hotspot for meth labs.

Operating a clandestine lab - usually in rural areas away from the public eye - can lead to toxic gas leaks, chemical fires and explosions. Ground water, drinking water and soil may be contaminated. The scene, once discovered by law enforcement officials, usually must be treated as a hazardous waste zone.

Property values decline.

The human toll is worse. One in three children's protective services cases in Van Buren County is meth-related.

"It's everybody's problem, not just the users'," said E.J. McAndrew, a drug and alcohol prevention specialist who heads the Van Buren County Methamphetamine Task Force.

This is where law enforcement and others believe pharmacists, groceries and convenience stores can help out. Cutting off easy access to pseudoephedrine can eliminate small labs run by those who make and use meth, officials say.

"It's going to take care of 90 percent of the problem in Michigan," McAndrew predicted.

State Sen. Patricia Birkholz agrees. The Republican from Allegan County's Saugatuck Township is sponsoring the legislation to limit the sale of pseudoephedrine. Birkholz said that because meth makes users paranoid, they may hesitate to show ID or sign a log to purchase decongestants.

"That's the way to have the heaviest impact on thwarting this horrible scourge," she said.


'Logistical nightmares'

Retailers already must restrict the amount of pseudoephedrine available for purchase in individual locations. But meth makers are hitting every store in a county, making it tougher to prevent stockpiling of the pills.

Four hundred cold tablets are needed to make an ounce of meth worth $1,500. Altogether, it costs just $80 to buy the pills and other household products that go into making meth.

Retailers and pharmacists say they are sympathetic to the meth problem but warn of "logistical nightmares" if the legislation is approved. One disagreement centers over which products to place behind or near the counter.

Gobler, of the grocers organization, said the legislation is written too broadly and could force bigger stores to put hundreds of different kinds of products behind the counter. She also criticized the ID and sign-in requirements.

"We're punishing law-abiding citizens who are buying legal products," Gobler said.


Out of stock

Another conflict between supporters and opponents is whether to put all tablets containing pseudoephedrine behind pharmacy counters and ban other types of stores from selling them.

Pharmacists say the concept - used in some other states - is the best way to safeguard the medications. It's not uncommon for products containing pseudoephedrine to be stolen, according to police, so having them behind a counter could keep them safe.

But that would leave other retailers, including grocery and convenience stores, unable to stock some types of cold medicine pills and tablets. That could hurt their bottom line.

Supporters say they understand why there is opposition to the measure. But they argue if Michigan does not make it harder to get ingredients, the state will attract meth manufacturers leaving states with newer and tougher statutes.

"If we don't have a law that's as stringent, people are going to come to Michigan," said Saucedo of the state police.


Debate on meth

The problem

• Cold medications are used to make a highly addictive drug called methamphetamine.

Proposed solution

• Some Michigan lawmakers want customers who buy products containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine to show valid ID and sign a log book.

The concern

• Retailers say customers shouldn't have to do that.

What's next

• Lawmakers plan to hold hearings after they return from their spring recess.

On the Web

• Michigan Legislature: www.legislature.mi.gov

• Michigan State Police: www.michigan.gov/msp

• Michigan Grocers Association: www.michigangrocers.org

• Michigan Pharmacists Association: www.mipharm.com

• Van Buren County Methamphetamine Task Force: www.vbmeth.org


Reply
#2
Show ID for any purchase? I don't think so. If you buy more than a reasonable quantity, a log would be appropriate.

If a criminal wants to by some Sudafed what scruples will they have to actually provide correct name and address? Not much. To be blunt, only law-abiding citizens work within the law. :whistling:
The Bill of No Rights
The United States has become a place where entertainers and professional athletes are mistaken for people of importance. Robert A. Heinlein
Reply
#3
Very good fake IDs are easy to procure and, as stated above, "log book" entries are easy to fake. It seems to me like it will cost these meth dealers ~$150, but after that they're home free. The average citizen, however, will be the real one getting screwed here.

Then again, I'm of the opinion that legalizing all drugs and just heavily taxing them is the best way to go for the federal government... but that's just me :) Not having to drop billions on the "drug war" and instead gaining billions in revenue seems like win/win to me. /shrug
--Mith

I would rather be ashes than dust! I would rather that my spark should burn out in a brilliant blaze than it should be stifled by dry rot. I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. The proper function of man is to live, not to exist. I shall not waste my days in trying to prolong them. I shall use my time.
Jack London
Reply
#4
Mithrandir,Apr 15 2005, 08:54 PM Wrote:Then again, I'm of the opinion that legalizing all drugs and just heavily taxing them is the best way to go for the federal government... but that's just me :) Not having to drop billions on the "drug war" and instead gaining billions in revenue seems like win/win to me. /shrug
[right][snapback]74023[/snapback][/right]

Having your kids hassled by pushers outside schools would also be an added bonus /shrug

Having some intruder high on P come in and carve up your family with a Samurai sword* would be even better /shrug

*based on recent event.
Reply
#5
whyBish,Apr 15 2005, 04:39 AM Wrote:Having your kids hassled by pushers outside schools would also be an added bonus /shrug

Having some intruder high on P come in and carve up your family with a Samurai sword* would be even better /shrug

*based on recent event.
[right][snapback]74029[/snapback][/right]

Nice try, whybish. Not having violent drunks do the same would be a Good Thing™ too. Being picky about your attacker's drug choice seems like a red-herring to me.
And you may call it righteousness
When civility survives,
But I've had dinner with the Devil and
I know nice from right.

From Dinner with the Devil, by Big Rude Jake


Reply
#6
ShadowHM,Apr 15 2005, 06:34 AM Wrote:Nice try, whybish.  Not having violent drunks do the same would be a Good Thing™ too.    Being picky about your attacker's drug choice seems like a red-herring to me.
[right][snapback]74033[/snapback][/right]

I have to disagree here. While I do agree that many of the drug laws in North America are ridiculous, I don't think there's any argument that there's a big difference between alcohol and some of the banned drugs out there. Alcohol only has such affects when abused. There are drugs out there that can only be abused.

gekko
"Life is sacred and you are not its steward. You have stewardship over it but you don't own it. You're making a choice to go through this, it's not just happening to you. You're inviting it, and in some ways delighting in it. It's not accidental or coincidental. You're choosing it. You have to realize you've made choices."
-Michael Ventura, "Letters@3AM"
Reply
#7
Mithrandir,Apr 15 2005, 03:54 AM Wrote:Then again, I'm of the opinion that legalizing all drugs and just heavily taxing them is the best way to go for the federal government... but that's just me :) Not having to drop billions on the "drug war" and instead gaining billions in revenue seems like win/win to me. /shrug
[right][snapback]74023[/snapback][/right]

Okay we've legalized drugs and are now taxing "heavily" them. How is that going to minimalize the negative aspects of drugs? With ready availability there is more opportunity to abuse which means more money needed for the next high. Drug users will then turn to their constant source of income for their high, crime. Except this time they'll be paying taxes instead of out right buying the drugs. What about the impact of more drug users/abusers upon the medical field? To expect that more folks using/abusing drugs isn't going to have a negative impact upon insurance premiums/availability of medical insurance.
Reply
#8
Tal,Apr 15 2005, 09:53 AM Wrote:Okay we've legalized drugs and are now taxing "heavily" them. How is that going to minimalize the negative aspects of drugs? With ready availability there is more opportunity to abuse which means more money needed for the next high. Drug users will then turn to their constant source of income for their high, crime. Except this time they'll be paying taxes instead of out right buying the drugs. What about the impact of more drug users/abusers upon the medical field? To expect that more folks using/abusing drugs isn't going to have a negative impact upon insurance premiums/availability of medical insurance.
[right][snapback]74045[/snapback][/right]

Where did the 'more folks using/abusing drugs' come from? What makes you think that there would be more if they were legal?

(That is not a sarcastic question. I have not seen any evidence that this would be the case. Have you? If so, please share. :) )
And you may call it righteousness
When civility survives,
But I've had dinner with the Devil and
I know nice from right.

From Dinner with the Devil, by Big Rude Jake


Reply
#9
ShadowHM,Apr 15 2005, 12:08 PM Wrote:Where did the 'more folks using/abusing drugs' come from?    What makes you think that there would be more if they were legal?

(That is not a sarcastic question.  I have not seen any evidence that this would be the case.  Have you?  If so, please share.  :) )
[right][snapback]74055[/snapback][/right]

I don't know of any country that has legalized all drugs. However, in the Netherlands, drug use saw an increase after Marijuana was legalized. I've not found the study that I read back when I was in training but will keep looking.
Reply
#10
Tal,Apr 15 2005, 11:12 AM Wrote:I don't know of any country that has legalized all drugs. However, in the Netherlands, drug use saw an increase after Marijuana was legalized. I've not found the study that I read back when I was in training but will keep looking.
[right][snapback]74057[/snapback][/right]

The only comparable case I can think of is Prohibition. Drinking did not go down then, did it? Did it increase when alcohol became legal again? Again, I don't think so.

As to the marijuana in the Netherlands, anecdotal evidence suggests that the increase was related to tourist use, not resident use. If you find the study, I would like to read it. :)
And you may call it righteousness
When civility survives,
But I've had dinner with the Devil and
I know nice from right.

From Dinner with the Devil, by Big Rude Jake


Reply
#11
gekko,Apr 15 2005, 09:30 AM Wrote:  Alcohol only has such affects when abused.  There are drugs out there that can only be abused.

gekko
[right][snapback]74041[/snapback][/right]

*puzzled look*

Please define 'abuse' and give some examples of self-administered drugs that qualify as being only used abusively?

And you may call it righteousness
When civility survives,
But I've had dinner with the Devil and
I know nice from right.

From Dinner with the Devil, by Big Rude Jake


Reply
#12
ShadowHM,Apr 15 2005, 08:08 AM Wrote:Where did the 'more folks using/abusing drugs' come from?    What makes you think that there would be more if they were legal?

(That is not a sarcastic question.  I have not seen any evidence that this would be the case.  Have you?  If so, please share.  :) )
[right][snapback]74055[/snapback][/right]

Some folks may be more likely to experiment with substances if the "I might get caught" function of the law is removed.

Also, what makes you think dealers will pay very much in taxes, if any for their drug trade? They are willing to duck the law now, why should they change?
The Bill of No Rights
The United States has become a place where entertainers and professional athletes are mistaken for people of importance. Robert A. Heinlein
Reply
#13
ShadowHM,Apr 15 2005, 12:23 PM Wrote:The only comparable case I can think of is Prohibition.  Drinking did not go down then, did it?  Did it increase when alcohol became legal again?  Again, I don't think so.[right][snapback]74060[/snapback][/right]

Its not comparable enough in my opinion. Here we are talking about something that has been illegal for generations and making it legal. With prohibition we are talking about something that was legal and then made it illegal. It would seem to me that there is a higher occurrence of people who wouldn't try something because it was illegal but would try it once it was legal.

ShadowHM,Apr 15 2005, 12:23 PM Wrote:As to the marijuana in the Netherlands, anecdotal evidence suggests that the increase was related to tourist use, not resident use.  If you find the study, I would like to read it.  :)
[right][snapback]74060[/snapback][/right]

Unfortunately my google fu seems to be lacking today. I've e-mailed one of my buddies still in the Corps to see if he can dig it out of the training manuals. :)
Reply
#14
Tal,Apr 15 2005, 11:48 AM Wrote:Its not comparable enough in my opinion. Here we are talking about something that has been illegal for generations and making it legal. With prohibition we are talking about something that was legal and then made it illegal.

Point taken. :)
Quote: It would seem to me that there is a higher occurrence of people who wouldn't try something because it was illegal but would try it once it was legal.

[right][snapback]74067[/snapback][/right]

I tried a number of illicit substances in my youth. In some cases, once was enough. In others, the passage of time and my changing lifestyle made me uninterested. And for some, I was fortunate enough to see the effects on others soon enough to not feel that it was worth bothering. (I always did have an aversion to needles, anyway.)

My point is that trying them and becoming addicted/abusive with them are not the same thing. I do not believe that there is a natural flow between trying and abusing. I will admit that if you never try something, you cannot get addicted/abusive. But that does not mean that the converse must be true. ;)
And you may call it righteousness
When civility survives,
But I've had dinner with the Devil and
I know nice from right.

From Dinner with the Devil, by Big Rude Jake


Reply
#15
jahcs,Apr 15 2005, 11:44 AM Wrote:Also, what makes you think dealers will pay very much in taxes, if any for their drug trade?  They are willing to duck the law now, why should they change?
[right][snapback]74066[/snapback][/right]

I think the 'dealers' are there for the supra-normal profits they achieve now. That is why they are willing to duck the law. If the trade is legal, there is considerably less profit in it. They would face competition from those for whom the diminished risk would offset the tax cost of doing business.

What happened to the rum-runners after Prohibition?
And you may call it righteousness
When civility survives,
But I've had dinner with the Devil and
I know nice from right.

From Dinner with the Devil, by Big Rude Jake


Reply
#16
ShadowHM,Apr 15 2005, 09:25 AM Wrote:What happened to the rum-runners after Prohibition?
[right][snapback]74070[/snapback][/right]

They opened casinos to steal legally. :P
The Bill of No Rights
The United States has become a place where entertainers and professional athletes are mistaken for people of importance. Robert A. Heinlein
Reply
#17
I still haven't found the Study but I have found something in this source

Page 136
The agency (The DEA) cites Alaska's experience. Marijuana was legalized there in the 1970s and the DEA states that the Alaskan teenage consumption of marijuana at more than twice the rate of teenagers elsewhere was a direct consequence of the Alaska Supreme Court Ruling. In 1990 there was a voter initiative that criminalized any possession of marijuana

ShadowHM,Apr 15 2005, 01:16 PM Wrote:I tried a number of illicit substances in my youth.  In some cases, once was enough.  In others, the passage of time and my changing lifestyle made me uninterested.  And for some, I was fortunate enough to see the effects on others soon enough to not feel that it was worth bothering.    (I always did have an aversion to needles, anyway.)

My point is that trying them and becoming addicted/abusive with them are not the same thing.  I do not believe that there is a natural flow between trying and abusing.  I will admit that if you never try something, you cannot get addicted/abusive.  But that does not mean that the converse must be true.  ;)
[right][snapback]74069[/snapback][/right]

This is true - drug use does not always equal abusing. But the numbers would indicate that the larger the population that is using the larger the numbers will be that are treated for addiction. You can see this in the above source on the charts for First exposure, drug prevalence and drug treatment. Those times when the drug cycle was high showed a larger wave of addiction treatment in the years afterwards. Conversely when those times of drug use was low the cycle remained low for addiction treatment. It should also be noted that in times when the drug cycle was high the crime rate rose at a steady rate. I will grant that this is a tenuous and circumstantial evidence but it certainly bears more investigation.
:)
Reply
#18
ShadowHM,Apr 15 2005, 11:27 AM Wrote:*puzzled look* 

Please define 'abuse' and give some examples of self-administered drugs that qualify as being only used abusively?
[right][snapback]74062[/snapback][/right]

Oh, I don't know. Maybe I'm just crazy, but I see a difference between having a glass of wine with my dinner or a beer while watching TV and snorting some cocaine. Silly of me?

Just about any substance, legal or illegal, can be abused. Where I live, teenagers getting high on gasoline fumes is getting to be a problem.

I'm not saying that all legal drugs are safe and all illegal drugs are evil. I'm simply saying that comparing some of the hard drugs, such as cocaine or crack, to alcohol is unrealistic.

gekko
"Life is sacred and you are not its steward. You have stewardship over it but you don't own it. You're making a choice to go through this, it's not just happening to you. You're inviting it, and in some ways delighting in it. It's not accidental or coincidental. You're choosing it. You have to realize you've made choices."
-Michael Ventura, "Letters@3AM"
Reply
#19
gekko,Apr 15 2005, 01:23 PM Wrote:Oh, I don't know.  Maybe I'm just crazy, but I see a difference between having a glass of wine with my dinner or a beer while watching TV and snorting some cocaine.  Silly of me?

Maybe. :) What if you had to stay up late and be sure to be alert? Caffeine or cocaine for the job? Is there a qualitative difference, apart from the legal issue? They are both addictive. Can you use them without being addicted? Yes.

Quote:Just about any substance, legal or illegal, can be abused.  Where I live, teenagers getting high on gasoline fumes is getting to be a problem.

That would be my point. Any drug can can be abused.

Quote:I'm not saying that all legal drugs are safe and all illegal drugs are evil.  I'm simply saying that comparing some of the hard drugs, such as cocaine or crack, to alcohol is unrealistic.

gekko
[right][snapback]74078[/snapback][/right]

Crack and cocaine are the same thing, right? (I am not up on my drug terminology.)

I am of the opinion that one can get addicted to anything - psycological addiction is just as pernicious as physical addiction. 'Hard' drugs are an artificial distinction. I have known people who were addicted to cocaine, people who were addicted to alcohol, people who were addicted to nicotine, people who were addicted to marijuana, people who were addicted to caffeine (there are rather a lot of them), people who are addicted to cough syrup...

So what makes any drug 'hard' ? And why is a self-administered low dose of relaxation (wine/beer) somehow different than a self-administered low dose of energy?
And you may call it righteousness
When civility survives,
But I've had dinner with the Devil and
I know nice from right.

From Dinner with the Devil, by Big Rude Jake


Reply
#20
gekko,Apr 15 2005, 06:30 AM Wrote:I have to disagree here.  While I do agree that many of the drug laws in North America are ridiculous, I don't think there's any argument that there's a big difference between alcohol and some of the banned drugs out there.  Alcohol only has such affects when abused.  There are drugs out there that can only be abused.

gekko
[right][snapback]74041[/snapback][/right]

According to statisctics, the highest percentage of drug related deaths comes straight from alcohol. The highest percentage of drug related crime comes straight from alcohol. What's more, the highest amount of drug related medical issues comes from alcohol (followed closely by tobacco).

I'd say alcohol is the worst there is, apparently. Forget the other crap.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 8 Guest(s)