5 ms·

I wonder how difficult it would be to get the restrictions on pseudoephedrine rolled back now that it appears unlikely they're accomplishing their original goal

by Zak 5y ago

I wonder how difficult it would be to get the restrictions on pseudoephedrine rolled back now that it appears unlikely they're accomplishing their original goal of limiting the methamphetamine supply. Concern (legitimate and otherwise) over ability to breathe is a popular topic in politics lately.

jrnichols 5y ago
Difficult. Dianne Feinstein was the figure behind the changes, as part of her war on drugs. She wanted pseudoephedrine made prescription only too. https://www.drugcaucus.senate.gov/press-releases/feinstein-gao-report-examines-effect-of-state-laws-on-methamphetamine-labs/ https://www.drugcaucus.senate.gov/press-releases/feinstein-g... ironically, OR and MS, the states listed in that report, are so far the only 2 that are starting to roll back the restrictions. Our elected officials seem adverse to admitting something doesn't work well and rolling it back, unfortunately.
- Zak 5y ago
  Every time she's mentioned, there's something to make me dislike Feinstein more than I already did. It does seem likely her strong opposition would be a high bar to clear, though as the oldest current senator, she may not be a factor for a long time.
  - reincarnate0x14 5y ago
    It really is amazing how someone manages to be on the wrong side of seemingly everything, and yet is locked into office past the point of senility.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - vkou 5y ago
      This means that either your calibration mechanism for 'wrong side' is flawed, or the system is rigged in a way that it consistently produces bad outcomes. Speaking for myself, am shocked and outraged that red senators and other congresscritters are consistently on the wrong side of seemingly everything, yet they keep getting elected. Of course, my political calibration mechanisms are quite in tune.
      - Zak 5y ago
        Feinstein is weirdly not aligned with the left or the tech industry given where she's from. Her strong anti-drug and anti-encryption stances are easy examples. If I had to pick a single organizing principle to describe her positions it would be a bureaucratic sort of authoritarianism (as distinguished from the strongman authoritarianism of someone like Donald Trump). I do believe the system is rigged in a way that consistently produces bad outcomes. The US Senate is structured to reward voters for keeping incumbents in office, and plurality voting virtually guarantees two dominant parties.
      - reincarnate0x14 5y ago
        Feinstein's hard authoritarian and surveillance state preferences haven't endeared her to many people who are also shocked and outraged by the usual collection of utterly repugnant red senators, so option B there.
      - orthecreedence 5y ago
        > the system is rigged in a way that it consistently produces bad outcomes. Yes. That one. "Real" change (ie, still a useless liberal democracy, but at least a bit more in service to the people) would start with voter reform and getting rid of FPTP entirely.
        astrange 5y ago
        You wouldn't like the results of either of those if you like "extreme" positions. - The most popular replacement for FPTP (which is biased away from centrism) is RCV (which is biased towards it). - FPTP does turn it into a two-party system, but US parties are weak. They don't control who joins them, who gets elected, or how anyone votes. In the UK you can actually get fired from the party for voting wrong.
    - noobermin 5y ago
      Another arrow in my quiver for why the US is honestly not a country to bet on for the next 20 years.
      - astrange 5y ago
        The only countries with better demographic trends than the US are in Africa.
        sydthrowaway 5y ago
        India?
    - orthecreedence 5y ago
      Yeah once in a while she does something and I think "ok, that makes sense." But she's generally a broken clock.
  - noobermin 5y ago
    Hate to do this but hopefully she will step down at some point, willingly or not due to her age.
- bredren 5y ago
  Wow, I did not know Oregon had repealed that already. Apparently, this past June: https://www.chpa.org/news/2021/06/oregon-repeal-unnecessary-otc-restrictions-dose-good-policy-consumers-and-healthcare https://www.chpa.org/news/2021/06/oregon-repeal-unnecessary-... IIRC, early attempts to repeal failed stalled. (I presumed due to some pharm lobby) I wonder if Covid and focus on flu like symptoms led to it getting “fast tracked.” Looks like pseudoephedrine OTC products became available for sale January 1st 2022. https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/politics/2022/01/01/oregon-new-law-sudafed-pseudoephedrine-prescription/9039344002/ https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/politics/2022/01... I made the drive from Portland to Vancouver, WA multiple times over the years (usually while sick) to resupply with something that worked. Glad that is done with.
baggy_trough 5y ago
Very difficult. Regulations live on regardless of their negative effects because there's very little incentive to get rid of them.
- Zak 5y ago
  For a long time, I've had the idea in the back of my mind that all laws should have expiration dates, and the maximum duration shouldn't be very long (12 or 18 years would be two or three senate terms in the US). Ideally, it would be combined with something to keep the scope of each bill narrow.
  - baggy_trough 5y ago
    It wouldn't work because what would happen would be a mass reapproval of all regulations. What I'd like to see is a constitutional amendment that the total body of federal laws and regulations can't be any longer or more complicated than a person of average intelligence can be taught in a week.
    - kevinpet 5y ago
      Or simply require that they be read in the house / senate before a vote. Not "read" but actually read, word for word out loud, by the sponsor.
    - brimble 5y ago
      > It wouldn't work because what would happen would be a mass reapproval of all regulations. Sunset provisions are an idea I tentatively like until I consider what happens with the fucking stupid, pointless "debt ceiling" crap Congress has decided to make themselves do. I imagine how fun it'd be watching months of idiotic brinksmanship over keeping murder illegal, because one group of legislators wants to grand-stand about abortion. Then repeat for practically everything else. No thanks.
    - Zak 5y ago
      I used to think a limit on the total size of the law like that would be a good idea, but some areas of regulation are inherently complex. I still hold a related position: an adult of reasonable intelligence should be able to easily learn all the laws that they're likely to encounter, and learn which fields are subject to detailed regulation. To give an example, the regulations governing design of commercial aircraft can almost certainly be simplified from their current state without killing people, but probably cannot be simplified to the point that someone who isn't already an expert on aircraft design can learn them in a week without killing people. Knowing that field is subject to special rules is enough to avoid accidentally violating the regulations.
dylan604 5y ago
Pessimistic me says not likely. Once these regulations are put in place, it is nearly impossible to get them removed. It takes a literal act of Congress. Now you have to spend useless energy against attacks of "soft on crime/drug abuse/etc" types of nonsense for suggesting removing an item from the list. Don't bother resorting to facts. Those are useless in the emotional knee jerk reactions that will ensue.
starwind 5y ago
WHY DO YOU WANT CHILDREN TO GET METH?--Opponents of rolling back restrictions on pseudoephedrine But more seriously, the FDA ends up regulating something like 30% of the economy and getting them to deregulate something is near impossible
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> how difficult it would be to get the restrictions on pseudoephedrine rolled back Likely a non-starter until the FDA revokes phenylephrine's designation as a decongestant.
eikenberry 5y ago
Pseudoephedrine restrictions were recently was rolled back in Oregon, where you had to have a prescription to get it. Now we're able to buy it over the counter with ID. So it can happen!
rootusrootus 5y ago
It's happening slowly. Oregon had pushed it all the way to requiring a prescription to get pseudoephedrine. It does still require a visit to the store pharmacy and showing your ID to prove you are an adult, but at least you can buy it without a prescription now. I think only a couple states ever went that far. But at least it is a step back in the right direction.
- somebodynew 5y ago
  The ID check isn't for age verification. Federal law requires IDs to be recorded* to enforce restrictions on the maximum quantity that an individual is permitted to purchase per month. * Edit: Where the word "recorded" appears, this comment previously said "scanned and submitted to a central database". While most states use a central database, the comment reply below pointed out that this goes beyond the minimum that federal law requires.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    I am not aware of a centralized federal database. My understanding is that federal regulations stipulate that the pharmacy must see photo ID and take note of who bought the pseudoephedrine, when, how much, and keep that information logged either on paper or electronically. To be available to law enforcement on request. The Oregon law does have a central database requirement, however I believe this is in all cases a decision made by each state individually.
    - somebodynew 5y ago
      You are correct, I was conflating two separate steps of the process. Federal law only requires keeping records and these could technically be done on paper. In practice, more than two thirds of the states participate in a central electronic database called the National Precursor Log Exchange.
sva_ 5y ago
It probably still makes it a lot more difficult to make meth in a "homelab", as alternative synthesis paths are probably a lot harder. So they're leaving it to the "clandestine pros", ironically ;). Also, in legislation, it seems like making things illegal passes several orders of magnitudes more easily, than anything that gives normal citizens more rights.
ashtonkem 5y ago
The restrictions the state places on us largely function as a one way ratchet, alas. There is a lot about American drug policy that is wildly unpopular, and yet here we are. A huge portion of the issue is that we’re largely ruled by people who don’t need to deal with any of the inconveniences they cause; if any senator or rep has a runny nose I’m sure they can get an aide to sort it out for them. The rest of us are not so lucky.

by Zak 5y ago

jrnichols 5y ago

Difficult. Dianne Feinstein was the figure behind the changes, as part of her war on drugs. She wanted pseudoephedrine made prescription only too. https://www.drugcaucus.senate.gov/press-releases/feinstein-gao-report-examines-effect-of-state-laws-on-methamphetamine-labs/ https://www.drugcaucus.senate.gov/press-releases/feinstein-g... ironically, OR and MS, the states listed in that report, are so far the only 2 that are starting to roll back the restrictions. Our elected officials seem adverse to admitting something doesn't work well and rolling it back, unfortunately.

Zak 5y ago
Every time she's mentioned, there's something to make me dislike Feinstein more than I already did. It does seem likely her strong opposition would be a high bar to clear, though as the oldest current senator, she may not be a factor for a long time.
- reincarnate0x14 5y ago
  It really is amazing how someone manages to be on the wrong side of seemingly everything, and yet is locked into office past the point of senility.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - vkou 5y ago
    This means that either your calibration mechanism for 'wrong side' is flawed, or the system is rigged in a way that it consistently produces bad outcomes. Speaking for myself, am shocked and outraged that red senators and other congresscritters are consistently on the wrong side of seemingly everything, yet they keep getting elected. Of course, my political calibration mechanisms are quite in tune.
    - Zak 5y ago
      Feinstein is weirdly not aligned with the left or the tech industry given where she's from. Her strong anti-drug and anti-encryption stances are easy examples. If I had to pick a single organizing principle to describe her positions it would be a bureaucratic sort of authoritarianism (as distinguished from the strongman authoritarianism of someone like Donald Trump). I do believe the system is rigged in a way that consistently produces bad outcomes. The US Senate is structured to reward voters for keeping incumbents in office, and plurality voting virtually guarantees two dominant parties.
    - reincarnate0x14 5y ago
      Feinstein's hard authoritarian and surveillance state preferences haven't endeared her to many people who are also shocked and outraged by the usual collection of utterly repugnant red senators, so option B there.
    - orthecreedence 5y ago
      > the system is rigged in a way that it consistently produces bad outcomes. Yes. That one. "Real" change (ie, still a useless liberal democracy, but at least a bit more in service to the people) would start with voter reform and getting rid of FPTP entirely.
      - astrange 5y ago
        You wouldn't like the results of either of those if you like "extreme" positions. - The most popular replacement for FPTP (which is biased away from centrism) is RCV (which is biased towards it). - FPTP does turn it into a two-party system, but US parties are weak. They don't control who joins them, who gets elected, or how anyone votes. In the UK you can actually get fired from the party for voting wrong.
  - noobermin 5y ago
    Another arrow in my quiver for why the US is honestly not a country to bet on for the next 20 years.
    - astrange 5y ago
      The only countries with better demographic trends than the US are in Africa.
      - sydthrowaway 5y ago
        India?
  - orthecreedence 5y ago
    Yeah once in a while she does something and I think "ok, that makes sense." But she's generally a broken clock.
- noobermin 5y ago
  Hate to do this but hopefully she will step down at some point, willingly or not due to her age.
bredren 5y ago
Wow, I did not know Oregon had repealed that already. Apparently, this past June: https://www.chpa.org/news/2021/06/oregon-repeal-unnecessary-otc-restrictions-dose-good-policy-consumers-and-healthcare https://www.chpa.org/news/2021/06/oregon-repeal-unnecessary-... IIRC, early attempts to repeal failed stalled. (I presumed due to some pharm lobby) I wonder if Covid and focus on flu like symptoms led to it getting “fast tracked.” Looks like pseudoephedrine OTC products became available for sale January 1st 2022. https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/politics/2022/01/01/oregon-new-law-sudafed-pseudoephedrine-prescription/9039344002/ https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/politics/2022/01... I made the drive from Portland to Vancouver, WA multiple times over the years (usually while sick) to resupply with something that worked. Glad that is done with.

baggy_trough 5y ago

Very difficult. Regulations live on regardless of their negative effects because there's very little incentive to get rid of them.

Zak 5y ago
For a long time, I've had the idea in the back of my mind that all laws should have expiration dates, and the maximum duration shouldn't be very long (12 or 18 years would be two or three senate terms in the US). Ideally, it would be combined with something to keep the scope of each bill narrow.
- baggy_trough 5y ago
  It wouldn't work because what would happen would be a mass reapproval of all regulations. What I'd like to see is a constitutional amendment that the total body of federal laws and regulations can't be any longer or more complicated than a person of average intelligence can be taught in a week.
  - kevinpet 5y ago
    Or simply require that they be read in the house / senate before a vote. Not "read" but actually read, word for word out loud, by the sponsor.
  - brimble 5y ago
    > It wouldn't work because what would happen would be a mass reapproval of all regulations. Sunset provisions are an idea I tentatively like until I consider what happens with the fucking stupid, pointless "debt ceiling" crap Congress has decided to make themselves do. I imagine how fun it'd be watching months of idiotic brinksmanship over keeping murder illegal, because one group of legislators wants to grand-stand about abortion. Then repeat for practically everything else. No thanks.
  - Zak 5y ago
    I used to think a limit on the total size of the law like that would be a good idea, but some areas of regulation are inherently complex. I still hold a related position: an adult of reasonable intelligence should be able to easily learn all the laws that they're likely to encounter, and learn which fields are subject to detailed regulation. To give an example, the regulations governing design of commercial aircraft can almost certainly be simplified from their current state without killing people, but probably cannot be simplified to the point that someone who isn't already an expert on aircraft design can learn them in a week without killing people. Knowing that field is subject to special rules is enough to avoid accidentally violating the regulations.

dylan604 5y ago

Pessimistic me says not likely. Once these regulations are put in place, it is nearly impossible to get them removed. It takes a literal act of Congress. Now you have to spend useless energy against attacks of "soft on crime/drug abuse/etc" types of nonsense for suggesting removing an item from the list. Don't bother resorting to facts. Those are useless in the emotional knee jerk reactions that will ensue.

starwind 5y ago

WHY DO YOU WANT CHILDREN TO GET METH?--Opponents of rolling back restrictions on pseudoephedrine But more seriously, the FDA ends up regulating something like 30% of the economy and getting them to deregulate something is near impossible

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> how difficult it would be to get the restrictions on pseudoephedrine rolled back Likely a non-starter until the FDA revokes phenylephrine's designation as a decongestant.

eikenberry 5y ago

Pseudoephedrine restrictions were recently was rolled back in Oregon, where you had to have a prescription to get it. Now we're able to buy it over the counter with ID. So it can happen!

rootusrootus 5y ago

It's happening slowly. Oregon had pushed it all the way to requiring a prescription to get pseudoephedrine. It does still require a visit to the store pharmacy and showing your ID to prove you are an adult, but at least you can buy it without a prescription now. I think only a couple states ever went that far. But at least it is a step back in the right direction.

somebodynew 5y ago
The ID check isn't for age verification. Federal law requires IDs to be recorded* to enforce restrictions on the maximum quantity that an individual is permitted to purchase per month. * Edit: Where the word "recorded" appears, this comment previously said "scanned and submitted to a central database". While most states use a central database, the comment reply below pointed out that this goes beyond the minimum that federal law requires.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  I am not aware of a centralized federal database. My understanding is that federal regulations stipulate that the pharmacy must see photo ID and take note of who bought the pseudoephedrine, when, how much, and keep that information logged either on paper or electronically. To be available to law enforcement on request. The Oregon law does have a central database requirement, however I believe this is in all cases a decision made by each state individually.
  - somebodynew 5y ago
    You are correct, I was conflating two separate steps of the process. Federal law only requires keeping records and these could technically be done on paper. In practice, more than two thirds of the states participate in a central electronic database called the National Precursor Log Exchange.

sva_ 5y ago

It probably still makes it a lot more difficult to make meth in a "homelab", as alternative synthesis paths are probably a lot harder. So they're leaving it to the "clandestine pros", ironically ;). Also, in legislation, it seems like making things illegal passes several orders of magnitudes more easily, than anything that gives normal citizens more rights.

ashtonkem 5y ago

The restrictions the state places on us largely function as a one way ratchet, alas. There is a lot about American drug policy that is wildly unpopular, and yet here we are. A huge portion of the issue is that we’re largely ruled by people who don’t need to deal with any of the inconveniences they cause; if any senator or rep has a runny nose I’m sure they can get an aide to sort it out for them. The rest of us are not so lucky.