3 ms·

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.

by 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.
dwighttk 8y ago
"Do not take pseudoephedrine for longer than 7 days in a row."[1] [1]https://www.drugs.com/pseudoephedrine.html https://www.drugs.com/pseudoephedrine.html
- Zak 8y ago
  The professional information on drugs.com does not suggest such a limitation when used under the supervision of a healthcare provider. It's most likely there because some common causes of congestion that don't clear up in a week can be more medically significant than the common cold. OTC pain relievers say not to use for more than 10 days, also because the underlying cause may require treatment. Regardless, people often do use OTC drugs in ways that might not be advisable, but definitely aren't recreational (leaving aside the issue of whether criminalizing recreational drug use is a good idea).
  - tptacek 8y ago
    Can we all just agree that because the ban on bulk sudafed purchases has nothing to do with drug safety, there's no public policy conclusion we can draw one way or the other from sudafed's counterindications? I can see this thread going back and force on blood pressure and stroke stuff and I think we probably all agree that if this was the only issue, pseudoephedrine would be back on the shelves. If a family could reasonably anticipate being arrested or searched for consuming sudafed regularly for several weeks (bad allergies, sinus cold, whatever), I stipulate that's significant and problematic. What I'm contending is that in 2019, that's so unlikely to happen as to be implausible.
    - Zak 8y ago
      Yes, it's clearly about meth. I just wanted to make clear that the fact that it says not to take it for more than 7 days doesn't mean people won't, and I don't think it's very controversial that people shouldn't be prosecuted for it. I don't know how likely prosecution is in 2019. There have been a few under much more restrictive state laws making pseudoephedrine prescription-only and criminalizing traveling out of state to obtain it, but that's not the original issue we were discussing. It's probably pretty unlikely under Federal law, but it took several posts back and forth on HN along with a PACER lookup for us to reach that conclusion explains fairly well why many people are uncomfortable with having their purchases tracked in this manner.

by Zak 8y ago

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.

dwighttk 8y ago

"Do not take pseudoephedrine for longer than 7 days in a row."[1] [1]https://www.drugs.com/pseudoephedrine.html https://www.drugs.com/pseudoephedrine.html

Zak 8y ago
The professional information on drugs.com does not suggest such a limitation when used under the supervision of a healthcare provider. It's most likely there because some common causes of congestion that don't clear up in a week can be more medically significant than the common cold. OTC pain relievers say not to use for more than 10 days, also because the underlying cause may require treatment. Regardless, people often do use OTC drugs in ways that might not be advisable, but definitely aren't recreational (leaving aside the issue of whether criminalizing recreational drug use is a good idea).
- tptacek 8y ago
  Can we all just agree that because the ban on bulk sudafed purchases has nothing to do with drug safety, there's no public policy conclusion we can draw one way or the other from sudafed's counterindications? I can see this thread going back and force on blood pressure and stroke stuff and I think we probably all agree that if this was the only issue, pseudoephedrine would be back on the shelves. If a family could reasonably anticipate being arrested or searched for consuming sudafed regularly for several weeks (bad allergies, sinus cold, whatever), I stipulate that's significant and problematic. What I'm contending is that in 2019, that's so unlikely to happen as to be implausible.
  - Zak 8y ago
    Yes, it's clearly about meth. I just wanted to make clear that the fact that it says not to take it for more than 7 days doesn't mean people won't, and I don't think it's very controversial that people shouldn't be prosecuted for it. I don't know how likely prosecution is in 2019. There have been a few under much more restrictive state laws making pseudoephedrine prescription-only and criminalizing traveling out of state to obtain it, but that's not the original issue we were discussing. It's probably pretty unlikely under Federal law, but it took several posts back and forth on HN along with a PACER lookup for us to reach that conclusion explains fairly well why many people are uncomfortable with having their purchases tracked in this manner.