Prescription for the Sniffles in Oregon
Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski signed a bill on Tuesday that would require a prescription for any medication that contains pseudoephedrine. Such medications include Claritin D, Sudafed and Theraflu. According to Sara Shepherd’s August 19 Hermiston Herald article, "Certain Cold Medicines Will Now Require Prescriptions," Oregon Board of Pharmacy’s executive director, Gary Schnabel, said the rule could possibly be in effect within three months.
Congress is also working on legislation to restrict the sale of pseudoephedrine containing medications. The proposed federal legislation would require that stores keep such medicines behind the counter and have purchasers produce identification and sign a log book.
Pseudoephedrine is the main ingredient used to manufacture methamphetamine. Some cold and allergy medications contain phenylephrine as an alternative to pseudoephedrine. Phenylephrine can not be used as a raw material for methamphetamine manufacture. It is effective at relieving cold and allergy symptoms in most people, but not necessarily all. There is also the possibility that some will experience side effects they did not experience from pseudoephedrine. Additionally, many people prefer to continue using products they already like to trying new ones. Trial sizes aren’t often available and no one likes having to buy an entire box of a product that turns out to be unsatisfactory.
In his August 19 AP article, "Oregon OK’s Cold Pill Prescription Bill," Brad Cain wrote, "But supporters called it a necessary step to curb methamphetamine production and safeguard children who are exposed to toxic chemicals in homes used as meth labs." Maybe, I have an unusual worldview, but isn’t having a parent or guardian who makes methamphetamine a bigger problem for those kids? Furthermore, if methamphetamine manufacture produces noxious fumes, wouldn’t neighbors smell it and report their suspicions to police? It seems that law enforcement efforts against the labs would be more productive than placing restrictions on the sale of cold medicines to law abiding citizens.
The main questions about legislation to regulate a product that is safe when used as intended are: Will this actually have an effect on the manufacture and availability of methamphetamine and what will the costs of compliance be?
The Hermiston Herald article states, "Kulongoski estimated that 20 to 25 percent of the meth sold in Oregon comes from home labs." Doesn’t that mean that 75% to 80% of the methamphetamine in Oregon does not come from home labs? Wouldn’t it be more worthwhile to concentrate on that 75% to 80%? Increasing amounts of methamphetamine are brought into the U.S. from Mexico. Better border security may be a more effective against methamphetamine than restricting the sale of OTC cold and allergy medicines.
Has anyone in Congress or state legislatures considered the compliance costs involved? The proposed federal legislation requiring such medications to be kept behind the counter will require employee time. The proposed legislation would entail that a clerk get the medicine out for the customer, check his/her ID and have the customer sign for a formerly self-service item. It is true that pharmacy counters are manned anyway. However, the pharmacy employees are already busy so high traffic stores may need more employees because cold and allergy medications are purchased by many customers. Aren’t lines in stores long enough already?
The Oregon law will be even more costly. Not only will it increase the number of prescriptions pharmacies must fill; it will also require doctor visits. Haven’t we been told to help keep health insurance costs down by avoiding unnecessary medical treatment? Minor allergies that these products treat don’t require a physician’s care. In most cases, neither do colds and flu because they are self-limiting infections.
Additionally, these laws will have enforcement costs. Someone will have to monitor pharmacies to make sure that customers weren’t given greater than allowable amounts, that log books were signed or, in Oregon, that the patients had valid prescriptions. That requires personnel.
These laws will inconvenience law abiding citizens, but those determined to make methamphetamine will probably obtain the ingredients via importation, theft and black market sources. Addicts will still obtain their supplies and will not seek treatment until they decide they need help.
Each year brings more legislation: Will we eventually regulate every product that is potentially harmful or that potentially can be used to make a harmful item? Such legislation will probably be as useful as gun control has been against crime: For example, Washington, D.C. has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation and one of the highest crime rates.
Copyright Eva Ellsworth, 08/21/05, all rights reserved
Congress is also working on legislation to restrict the sale of pseudoephedrine containing medications. The proposed federal legislation would require that stores keep such medicines behind the counter and have purchasers produce identification and sign a log book.
Pseudoephedrine is the main ingredient used to manufacture methamphetamine. Some cold and allergy medications contain phenylephrine as an alternative to pseudoephedrine. Phenylephrine can not be used as a raw material for methamphetamine manufacture. It is effective at relieving cold and allergy symptoms in most people, but not necessarily all. There is also the possibility that some will experience side effects they did not experience from pseudoephedrine. Additionally, many people prefer to continue using products they already like to trying new ones. Trial sizes aren’t often available and no one likes having to buy an entire box of a product that turns out to be unsatisfactory.
In his August 19 AP article, "Oregon OK’s Cold Pill Prescription Bill," Brad Cain wrote, "But supporters called it a necessary step to curb methamphetamine production and safeguard children who are exposed to toxic chemicals in homes used as meth labs." Maybe, I have an unusual worldview, but isn’t having a parent or guardian who makes methamphetamine a bigger problem for those kids? Furthermore, if methamphetamine manufacture produces noxious fumes, wouldn’t neighbors smell it and report their suspicions to police? It seems that law enforcement efforts against the labs would be more productive than placing restrictions on the sale of cold medicines to law abiding citizens.
The main questions about legislation to regulate a product that is safe when used as intended are: Will this actually have an effect on the manufacture and availability of methamphetamine and what will the costs of compliance be?
The Hermiston Herald article states, "Kulongoski estimated that 20 to 25 percent of the meth sold in Oregon comes from home labs." Doesn’t that mean that 75% to 80% of the methamphetamine in Oregon does not come from home labs? Wouldn’t it be more worthwhile to concentrate on that 75% to 80%? Increasing amounts of methamphetamine are brought into the U.S. from Mexico. Better border security may be a more effective against methamphetamine than restricting the sale of OTC cold and allergy medicines.
Has anyone in Congress or state legislatures considered the compliance costs involved? The proposed federal legislation requiring such medications to be kept behind the counter will require employee time. The proposed legislation would entail that a clerk get the medicine out for the customer, check his/her ID and have the customer sign for a formerly self-service item. It is true that pharmacy counters are manned anyway. However, the pharmacy employees are already busy so high traffic stores may need more employees because cold and allergy medications are purchased by many customers. Aren’t lines in stores long enough already?
The Oregon law will be even more costly. Not only will it increase the number of prescriptions pharmacies must fill; it will also require doctor visits. Haven’t we been told to help keep health insurance costs down by avoiding unnecessary medical treatment? Minor allergies that these products treat don’t require a physician’s care. In most cases, neither do colds and flu because they are self-limiting infections.
Additionally, these laws will have enforcement costs. Someone will have to monitor pharmacies to make sure that customers weren’t given greater than allowable amounts, that log books were signed or, in Oregon, that the patients had valid prescriptions. That requires personnel.
These laws will inconvenience law abiding citizens, but those determined to make methamphetamine will probably obtain the ingredients via importation, theft and black market sources. Addicts will still obtain their supplies and will not seek treatment until they decide they need help.
Each year brings more legislation: Will we eventually regulate every product that is potentially harmful or that potentially can be used to make a harmful item? Such legislation will probably be as useful as gun control has been against crime: For example, Washington, D.C. has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation and one of the highest crime rates.
Copyright Eva Ellsworth, 08/21/05, all rights reserved
2 Comments:
I read your blog, and i thought it was rather cool. check out My Blog
Please Click Here to view it
Have a Great Day
Free the shackles of pseudoephidrine when used as origanally directed!
While your at it-
cannibis stativa
cocaine
opium
belladonna
and while your at it
1,1,1, tricloroethelene!
All of these have useful places in medicine or utility, they are, however,"controlled substances" for a reason.
Post a Comment
<< Home