3 ms·

Probably the most rational, objective concern would be mistakenly exceeding a legal limit and being prosecuted. The limit (9g in a month) is high for an individ

by Zak 8y ago

Probably the most rational, objective concern would be mistakenly exceeding a legal limit and being prosecuted. The limit (9g in a month) is high for an individual, but could be a real risk for someone who does most of the shopping for a large family. This kind of thing is not an imagined risk, as it has happened in reality: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/21/meth-laws-oregons-prescription-cold-medicine_n_1290918.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/21/meth-laws-oregons-... Recent backlash against tech companies tracking users suggests that in general, people do not like being tracked. People may even prefer less effective OTC medications to prescriptions on the basis of anonymity. This may or may not be based on a rational concern about a more concrete negative outcome.

tptacek 8y ago
I thought it was interesting that people might have been prosecuted for accidentally exceeding the pseudoephedrine purchase limits, so I tracked down the case that the article mentions and pulled it from PACER, both the complaint and the sentencing memorandum. This may be an "exception that proves the rule", since William Fousse, the guy who got prosecuted, was addicted to pseudoephedrine and was buying large amounts of it, so large that the investigating officers found it implausible that he'd be personally consuming it (it turns out, he was; he was doing a see-saw thing where he'd get drunk and then use the pseudoephedrine to come up from it to get work done). He was buying from multiple pharmacies, apparently to avoid the limit. This is not a case that makes me alarmed for my own safety when going to buy a 40-pack of sudafed, though I'm receptive to the argument that prosecution for an actual sudafed addiction was not the intent of the law and should not have been prosecuted in the first place.
- Zak 8y ago
  I don't think anybody should be prosecuted for any self-administration of any substance provided there was no harm or direct, undue risk of harm to others (e.g. DUI). That's a bit of a tangent though. Instead, let's take a look at scenarios where you might buy over 9000 mg in a month. The maximum recommended dose is 50mg every 8 hours, so 3 times a day. 9000/50/3 = 60 person-days. If it's allergy season and they're all taking the maximum dose, a family of four could hit the limit in 15 days. Inefficient distribution (making sure there's always some in both of the cars, each kid's backpack, at each adult's work) makes it even easier to hit the limit. The largest size normally available is 96x25 mg. Four of those is 9600 mg. Just trying to get a box for each family member makes you a criminal.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    The point I was making was that in the case you cited, the person charged didn't just blow far past the limit (because, again, they were abusing pseudoephedrine as a stimulant), but also took steps to avoid the limit (for instance, by striping their purchases across multiple pharmacies). Perhaps the limit should be higher? Certainly, I agree in advance that people not making meth and not reselling shouldn't be getting prosecuted. But the story of William Fousse doesn't really have much to tell me about the public policy value of pseudoephedrine restrictions or about the likelihood that an especially allergic family might get caught up in it. If you find other cases where something like that happened, I'm happy to dig into the filings as best I can. Later There are also a couple surveys of the state laws easily Googleable, and most of them have "knowingly" (for evading the limit) or "intent" (to manufacture meth) standards for the offenses themselves.
    - Zak 8y ago
      Here are a couple more. While both of these do involve state laws, one of which looks to have lower limits than the Federal law, the act itself appears to be purchasing pseudoephedrine for on-label use without knowingly skirting legal limits. https://reason.com/blog/2014/07/28/one-box-of-sudafed-over-the-line-florida https://reason.com/blog/2014/07/28/one-box-of-sudafed-over-t... http://reason.com/blog/2009/09/30/put-down-the-cold-pills-grandm http://reason.com/blog/2009/09/30/put-down-the-cold-pills-gr...
      - tptacek 8y ago
        Didn't these both happen in the immediate wake of the pseudoephedrine ban, before the states built their automatic registry systems? Don't you get simply get denied your purchase if you try to buy over the limit now?
        Zak 8y ago
        That does appear to be the case, however attempt to commit a crime is a crime. If prosecutions under that theory are not happening now, they're one "get tough on drugs" prosecutor away from happening.

by Zak 8y ago

tptacek 8y ago

I thought it was interesting that people might have been prosecuted for accidentally exceeding the pseudoephedrine purchase limits, so I tracked down the case that the article mentions and pulled it from PACER, both the complaint and the sentencing memorandum. This may be an "exception that proves the rule", since William Fousse, the guy who got prosecuted, was addicted to pseudoephedrine and was buying large amounts of it, so large that the investigating officers found it implausible that he'd be personally consuming it (it turns out, he was; he was doing a see-saw thing where he'd get drunk and then use the pseudoephedrine to come up from it to get work done). He was buying from multiple pharmacies, apparently to avoid the limit. This is not a case that makes me alarmed for my own safety when going to buy a 40-pack of sudafed, though I'm receptive to the argument that prosecution for an actual sudafed addiction was not the intent of the law and should not have been prosecuted in the first place.

Zak 8y ago
I don't think anybody should be prosecuted for any self-administration of any substance provided there was no harm or direct, undue risk of harm to others (e.g. DUI). That's a bit of a tangent though. Instead, let's take a look at scenarios where you might buy over 9000 mg in a month. The maximum recommended dose is 50mg every 8 hours, so 3 times a day. 9000/50/3 = 60 person-days. If it's allergy season and they're all taking the maximum dose, a family of four could hit the limit in 15 days. Inefficient distribution (making sure there's always some in both of the cars, each kid's backpack, at each adult's work) makes it even easier to hit the limit. The largest size normally available is 96x25 mg. Four of those is 9600 mg. Just trying to get a box for each family member makes you a criminal.
- tptacek 8y ago
  The point I was making was that in the case you cited, the person charged didn't just blow far past the limit (because, again, they were abusing pseudoephedrine as a stimulant), but also took steps to avoid the limit (for instance, by striping their purchases across multiple pharmacies). Perhaps the limit should be higher? Certainly, I agree in advance that people not making meth and not reselling shouldn't be getting prosecuted. But the story of William Fousse doesn't really have much to tell me about the public policy value of pseudoephedrine restrictions or about the likelihood that an especially allergic family might get caught up in it. If you find other cases where something like that happened, I'm happy to dig into the filings as best I can. Later There are also a couple surveys of the state laws easily Googleable, and most of them have "knowingly" (for evading the limit) or "intent" (to manufacture meth) standards for the offenses themselves.
  - Zak 8y ago
    Here are a couple more. While both of these do involve state laws, one of which looks to have lower limits than the Federal law, the act itself appears to be purchasing pseudoephedrine for on-label use without knowingly skirting legal limits. https://reason.com/blog/2014/07/28/one-box-of-sudafed-over-the-line-florida https://reason.com/blog/2014/07/28/one-box-of-sudafed-over-t... http://reason.com/blog/2009/09/30/put-down-the-cold-pills-grandm http://reason.com/blog/2009/09/30/put-down-the-cold-pills-gr...
    - tptacek 8y ago
      Didn't these both happen in the immediate wake of the pseudoephedrine ban, before the states built their automatic registry systems? Don't you get simply get denied your purchase if you try to buy over the limit now?
      - Zak 8y ago
        That does appear to be the case, however attempt to commit a crime is a crime. If prosecutions under that theory are not happening now, they're one "get tough on drugs" prosecutor away from happening.