[Previous entry: "Standup Philosopher"] [Next entry: "Sports"]

01/24/2006: "Government"

I swear. I'm not surprised, but now they're making you sign to buy Sudafed. They've got a little binder so they can check how long it's been since the last time you bought any. And they say it's the law. Of course, there's a Walgreens on every corner, each with their own little binders filled with pages of people's records. So you can always get more if you want. But it's just a hassle. It's easier to hassle the law-abiding by passing a new feel-good law than actually enforcing existing laws. And it's certainly easy to ban stuff you don't care about yourself. The ones who don't like smoking ban smoking. If you didn't like milk, it would be easy to support a ban that, too.

I wish I knew who was responsible for these laws so I could vote against them. Of course, I'm sure it's like voting against the people who never do anything about traffic. Can I vote against them all? Some do. It's called not voting. If someone knows how to run a campaign, I'm your "free the sudafed" candidate. State senate, U.S. House, whatever. Of course, you have to take the rest of my conservative/libertarian positions, too, but number 1 will be to stop this crazy, stupid attempt to keep me from buying nasal decongestant. Last year they hid it behind the counter. Now you have to sign for it. Next it'll be prescription only -- that's already how it is in Oregon. After that, banned. Just like they did with diet pills containing ephedra. And when that day comes, I can only hope all the politicians who felt like they were helping by getting sudafed off the street (and into the black market where the bold and daring can make huge profits on it -- just wait until it's completely outlawed) will all get a chronic case of stuffy nose that lasts the rest of their natural lives.

And as far as "helping", this article points out how all these restrictions on sudafed don't really help, at least not in the big picture. You have to read past the first paragraph. Sure, some people have stopped buying or stealing sudafed by the truckful since it got more restricted, reducing their ability to cook up some meth; so the Mexicans jump in to fill the void with a more expensive, more powerful version, with more dangerous criminals and more severe medical problems. Way to go, big government.

Replies: 1 Comment

on Saturday, February 18th, smilingvenus said

This government mentality has persisted ever since the prohibitionist era. The ‘privileged’ few have taken it upon themselves to think and decide for the ‘lowly illiterate masses,’ slow to accept the fact that we have evolved into competent 'productive' adults (for that is how our worth is assigned by those who look down from their loudly proclaimed self-righteous pedestals) and less entertained by the fact that we have outgrown them.
Every individual who used ephedra responsibly had to suffer from the government mandated ban on the natural substance, because our democratic government took an isolated incident and proclaimed it the norm. How many ephedra consumers took more that their body recommended, and less likely, ran out in the middle of a hot muggy day to play baseball for hours until they passed out from dehydration? One death for over 17 million consumers of Ephedra is a national epidemic? More likely, the fact that pharmaceutical companies capitalized on the ban by introducing a cornucopia of new or neglected patented drugs for a country whose leading cause of death is obesity, played a significant role. That's a large market of consumers, especially if you add the 17 million ex Ephedra consumers who have been denied a choice between a natural herb and less tested, man made, synthetic, patented drugs.
The Sudafed incident is painfully ironic. We are assumed guilty until proven innocent, but the pharmaceutical companies are assumed innocent of the fact that higher drug costs are the reason for inflated insurance co pays and premiums. Putting Sudafed behind the counter will instantly increase its cost, especially because it will involve a doctor’s appointment.
The very thing that meth promises a user is long lasting energy, accelerated metabolism, and enhanced mood, the very things Ephedra accomplishes naturally and without the horrendous side effects suffered by meth users: paranoia, insomnia, mental disturbances, and premature aging. Unfortunately, soon it may be easier to buy meth on the streets than buy Sudafed at the pharmacy; the same fate inflicted upon Ephedra. And it has less to do with Science and all to do with Profits, Shareholders, and Lobbyists.
What good is freedom if you are denied (or limited) personal choices such as ‘should I suffer from a head cold, or should I seek relief so I can carry on with my life?’ The same violation of our personal rights is being experienced by pain suffers at the hand of an all too powerful ‘democratic’ government. One used to be treated with dignity and respect at the doctor’s office, where patients used to feel comfortable confiding in their doctors. It has become more common to feel invalidated and stereotyped if one mentions pain relief. Most doctors cringe at the thought of losing their license should they de deemed guilty of ‘over prescribing’ as judged by the DEA, so they prescribe Motrin (an over the counter drug!) That is their first and foremost thought today, rather than ‘how do I relieve the suffering in my patient?’ The patient/doctor relationship has been violated, by our own government’s overzealous preoccupation with this new arm of the ‘Drug War.’ It is no coincidence that the patented rights to most narcotic pain relievers have expired, making them available as generics, and newer ‘non narcotic’ medications have been created, quickly run through minimal tests, and promoted not only by TV ads, but by the constant threat upon our doctors, forcing them to completely violate the Hippocrates oath, forcing the belief that newer drugs are better, even when they carry more side effects and less pain relief, such as Vioxx. There is no democracy without freedom, and an individual cannot be free if he or she is prohibited the right to choose (and denied the availability of choices).