6 ms·

Articles like this and reading about the FDA forcing drug manufacturers to replace pseudoephedrine (effective cold medicine) with phenylephrine (basically a pla

by pnw 4y ago

Articles like this and reading about the FDA forcing drug manufacturers to replace pseudoephedrine (effective cold medicine) with phenylephrine (basically a placebo) really make me wonder about the intelligence level of the federal agencies. https://pharmacy.ufl.edu/2015/10/14/uf-researchers-ask-fda-to-remove-non-prescription-decongestant-from-the-market/ https://pharmacy.ufl.edu/2015/10/14/uf-researchers-ask-fda-t...

specialist 4y ago
US bureaucracy is the cafeteria for our unending food fights, pitting Profit Motive against Moral Panic.
unclenoriega 4y ago
Did the FDA force drug manufacturers to replace pseudoephedrine with phenylephrine or did Congress make it more difficult to purchase pseudoephedrine and drug companies decided to make new products with phenylephrine to sell in addition to pseudoephedrine products?
hotpotamus 4y ago
I've never had a problem getting pseudoephedrine, though it is behind the counter in a pharmacy these days. There are limits, but they are well over what I would consider a therapeutic dose. I don't know if that varies state-to-state, but I doubt it's a federal issue.
- ultrarunner 4y ago
  https://reason.com/2009/09/28/hoosier-grandmother-arrested-f/ https://reason.com/2009/09/28/hoosier-grandmother-arrested-f...
  - ufmace 4y ago
    This outrage-bait is curiously at odds with the sentiment in the sibling post by /u/fnordfnordfnord. Do you want front-level employees to judge whether somebody "look like a person who would manufacturer amphetamines" or not? If the answer is yes, then people who look sketchy in some random pharmacy worker's opinion are the only ones to get arrested, whether or not they're actually up to anything. If the answer is no, then yes indeed it's correct to arrest grandmas who break the law because we're not allowed to judge whether they look like they're cooking meth or not.
    - ultrarunner 4y ago
      Personally, no, I don't really want front-level employees refusing to sell sinus medication on a whim. It doesn't really work for alcohol (i.e. it doesn't stop kids from getting alcohol, but does create headaches for adults). Alcohol is, in aggregate, probably more destructive to society. But it's also wrong to arrest grandmothers on drug charges and send them through the system for a violation of some legislator's arbitrary limit. Turns out it didn't solve the meth problem, but it did make the world a little worse to live in. Also, I think describing the article as "outrage-bait" is in poor taste for this site. A different implication might be that when criminal charges are tied to an action with the intent of limiting an activity, those charges will inevitably be applied to "the wrong people" (maybe you?) for a different activity, and that we should be skeptical of problem-solving-through-force.
- crtracker 4y ago
  perhaps it's different in your state, but in mine you can only get one box/month regardless of how much is in the box. and the size of the boxes available varies. if you manage to get a 96-count box then that's enough for once/day of the regular dose (2 tabs/day) plus some extra. but 96 is often sold out across many local pharmacies (I'd guess about half the time I try), and then the next best option is 48. this means you don't have enough for once/day (I need 2 tabs once/day as prescribed by my doc). sometimes all that's available is 24-count. or none at all. add to this that the state verification system goes down with some frequency, and on those days nobody can buy at all (and you don't know until they have your box within arms reach and you're trying to pay). so every month I end up on a hunt for this medication that is extremely frustrating and sometimes doesn't result in me getting what I need. meanwhile meth rages anyway--while domestic production went down after the sudafed restrictions, consumption continues due to illegal imports.
- fnordfnordfnord 4y ago
  Pharmacists and pharmacy techs are given "training" on how to identify supposed fraudulent sales. e.g. if your hair is long or you otherwise look like a person who would manufacturer amphetamines (whatever that looks like) they won't sell it to you. So, congrats to you for looking like a fine upstanding person and not like a clandestine drugs manufacturer.
  - nikolqy 4y ago
    Anyone can by pseudoephedrine, but there’s a system that checks to make sure you haven’t exceeded your monthly limit, and if someone is talking about meth or makes a joke about meth while buying pseudoephedrine, it might raise a red flag, but generally pharmacies sell it to anyone since there’s really no workaround the the monthly limits.
  - filoleg 4y ago
    > Pharmacists and pharmacy techs are given "training" on how to identify supposed fraudulent sales. e.g. if your hair is long or you otherwise look like a person who would manufacturer amphetamines I am sorry, what? Maybe I have just been lucky my entire life, but that has never been my experience. I used to have long hair for many years, and I haven't had a clean-shaven face in years. Dark circles under my eyes is a common thing. I also have ear piercings, and I dress in baggy non-assuming casual clothing most of the time. Not once was I ever questioned about or refused any behind the counter drugs at any of the pharmacies I've been to across multiple states. They do ask for an ID to purchase those behind the counter drugs, but I am pretty sure they are legally obligated to do it for everyone, due to the regulations that the thread is talking about. Also, I believe you meant to say "methamphetamines". There is no illegal amphetamine manufacturing epidemic (and I am not aware of there ever being one), but there was a methamphetamine one.
rocket_surgeron 4y ago
Federal agencies do what they’re told. The restrictions on pseudoephedrine were mandated by Congress through the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 (passed as part of the patriot act) which followed various state legislatures’ passages of similar laws. The main driving force behind the law was Bush’s White House drug task force and several members of Congress. Federal agencies very, very, rarely solicit or propose legislation like this. And Congress rarely asks for their input.
- Ntrails 4y ago
  > Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 (passed as part of the patriot act) This change was passed under special anti-terrorist powers? (Not US so possible misunderstood)
  - lazide 4y ago
    Not passed using special powers, included the huge ‘everything and the kitchen sink’ law passed to ‘fight terrorism’ after 9/11. https://www.aclu.org/other/myths-and-realities-about-patriot-act https://www.aclu.org/other/myths-and-realities-about-patriot...
  - specialist 4y ago
    I found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Methamphetamine_Epidemic_Act_of_2005 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Methamphetamine_Epidemi... It was added as a part of a reauthorization of the original Patriot Act. US Federal policy making and legislation is a bit like calvinball. And for misc reasons, Congress tends to pass large (omnibus) bills, instead of more reasonable units of work. As an outsider looking in, I collect and read stuff about "the sausage factory". Here's one study that looks past the folk theories, to illuminate how some example laws came to be. Similarly comprehensive books could be written about most all major legislation. SYMPOSIUM: UNORTHODOX LAWMAKING, UNORTHODOX RULEMAKING https://www.columbialawreview.org/content/unorthodox-lawmaking-unorthodox-rulemaking/ https://www.columbialawreview.org/content/unorthodox-lawmaki... "The Schoolhouse Rock! cartoon version of the conventional legislative process is dead, if it was ever an accurate description in the first place. Major policy today is often the product of “unorthodox lawmaking” and “unorthodox rulemaking”—deviations from traditional process marked by frequent use of omnibus bills and multiple agency implementation; emergency statutes and regulations issued without prior comment; outsourcing to lawmaking commissions and unconventional delegates; process shortcuts outside of emergencies; presidential policymaking; and outside drafters, some nonpartisan and others hyperpartisan. These unorthodoxies are everywhere, and they have shifted the balance in the elected branches and beyond, often centralizing power in actors—like party leadership and the White House—not traditionally part of the core lawmaking and rulemaking processes. These unorthodoxies are the new textbook process." BOOK: Unorthodox Lawmaking: New Legislative Processes in the U.S. Congress [2017] https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/unorthodox-lawmaking-5e https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/unorthodox-lawmaking-5e
bawolff 4y ago
Why would that make you wonder about their intelligence? FDA having different priorities than you is not the same as them being stupid.
- sybercecurity 4y ago
  Correct. It's sometimes referred to as "mission blindness": when a bureaucracy (or part of a bureaucracy) is so focused on short-term mission goals to the detriment of everything else. The people taking these actions will continue this path unless the told otherwise.
  - phendrenad2 4y ago
    Again, this presupposes that they are prioritizing things in some objective way. Perhaps based on the data they're looking at, it makes sense to do this. And no, "they should ignore that data because it's obviously wrong, according to me" isn't valid.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  Results matter. I don't care if you're doing a bad job because you're evil or because you're stupid or because you're staffed with a bunch of people who are mostly apathetic and the few who aren't and are driving policy are tunnel vision extremists with mission goals that do not line up well with the public (a frequent situation for these kinds of organizations). Stop doing a bad job.
- chris_wot 4y ago
  Because they are clearly making objectively stupid decisions.
google234123 4y ago
pseudoephedrine is amazing, I just recently found it and unlike every other cold medicine I've ever tried it actually works and clears my nose.
- specto 4y ago
  It is, but it's also one of those drugs cardiologists refuse to take themselves
  - bdavisx 4y ago
    Why?
    - hammyhavoc 4y ago
      Narrows the blood vessels in your entire body, not just your nose.
jolux 4y ago
Pharma companies decided to sell a drug that doesn’t work so they wouldn’t lose sales from pseudoephedrine going behind the counter. They could have simply chosen not to, alas. Also, that switch was required by law. It wasn’t at FDA’s discretion.

by pnw 4y ago

specialist 4y ago

US bureaucracy is the cafeteria for our unending food fights, pitting Profit Motive against Moral Panic.

unclenoriega 4y ago

Did the FDA force drug manufacturers to replace pseudoephedrine with phenylephrine or did Congress make it more difficult to purchase pseudoephedrine and drug companies decided to make new products with phenylephrine to sell in addition to pseudoephedrine products?

hotpotamus 4y ago

I've never had a problem getting pseudoephedrine, though it is behind the counter in a pharmacy these days. There are limits, but they are well over what I would consider a therapeutic dose. I don't know if that varies state-to-state, but I doubt it's a federal issue.

ultrarunner 4y ago
https://reason.com/2009/09/28/hoosier-grandmother-arrested-f/ https://reason.com/2009/09/28/hoosier-grandmother-arrested-f...
- ufmace 4y ago
  This outrage-bait is curiously at odds with the sentiment in the sibling post by /u/fnordfnordfnord. Do you want front-level employees to judge whether somebody "look like a person who would manufacturer amphetamines" or not? If the answer is yes, then people who look sketchy in some random pharmacy worker's opinion are the only ones to get arrested, whether or not they're actually up to anything. If the answer is no, then yes indeed it's correct to arrest grandmas who break the law because we're not allowed to judge whether they look like they're cooking meth or not.
  - ultrarunner 4y ago
    Personally, no, I don't really want front-level employees refusing to sell sinus medication on a whim. It doesn't really work for alcohol (i.e. it doesn't stop kids from getting alcohol, but does create headaches for adults). Alcohol is, in aggregate, probably more destructive to society. But it's also wrong to arrest grandmothers on drug charges and send them through the system for a violation of some legislator's arbitrary limit. Turns out it didn't solve the meth problem, but it did make the world a little worse to live in. Also, I think describing the article as "outrage-bait" is in poor taste for this site. A different implication might be that when criminal charges are tied to an action with the intent of limiting an activity, those charges will inevitably be applied to "the wrong people" (maybe you?) for a different activity, and that we should be skeptical of problem-solving-through-force.
crtracker 4y ago
perhaps it's different in your state, but in mine you can only get one box/month regardless of how much is in the box. and the size of the boxes available varies. if you manage to get a 96-count box then that's enough for once/day of the regular dose (2 tabs/day) plus some extra. but 96 is often sold out across many local pharmacies (I'd guess about half the time I try), and then the next best option is 48. this means you don't have enough for once/day (I need 2 tabs once/day as prescribed by my doc). sometimes all that's available is 24-count. or none at all. add to this that the state verification system goes down with some frequency, and on those days nobody can buy at all (and you don't know until they have your box within arms reach and you're trying to pay). so every month I end up on a hunt for this medication that is extremely frustrating and sometimes doesn't result in me getting what I need. meanwhile meth rages anyway--while domestic production went down after the sudafed restrictions, consumption continues due to illegal imports.
fnordfnordfnord 4y ago
Pharmacists and pharmacy techs are given "training" on how to identify supposed fraudulent sales. e.g. if your hair is long or you otherwise look like a person who would manufacturer amphetamines (whatever that looks like) they won't sell it to you. So, congrats to you for looking like a fine upstanding person and not like a clandestine drugs manufacturer.
- nikolqy 4y ago
  Anyone can by pseudoephedrine, but there’s a system that checks to make sure you haven’t exceeded your monthly limit, and if someone is talking about meth or makes a joke about meth while buying pseudoephedrine, it might raise a red flag, but generally pharmacies sell it to anyone since there’s really no workaround the the monthly limits.
- filoleg 4y ago
  > Pharmacists and pharmacy techs are given "training" on how to identify supposed fraudulent sales. e.g. if your hair is long or you otherwise look like a person who would manufacturer amphetamines I am sorry, what? Maybe I have just been lucky my entire life, but that has never been my experience. I used to have long hair for many years, and I haven't had a clean-shaven face in years. Dark circles under my eyes is a common thing. I also have ear piercings, and I dress in baggy non-assuming casual clothing most of the time. Not once was I ever questioned about or refused any behind the counter drugs at any of the pharmacies I've been to across multiple states. They do ask for an ID to purchase those behind the counter drugs, but I am pretty sure they are legally obligated to do it for everyone, due to the regulations that the thread is talking about. Also, I believe you meant to say "methamphetamines". There is no illegal amphetamine manufacturing epidemic (and I am not aware of there ever being one), but there was a methamphetamine one.

rocket_surgeron 4y ago

Federal agencies do what they’re told. The restrictions on pseudoephedrine were mandated by Congress through the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 (passed as part of the patriot act) which followed various state legislatures’ passages of similar laws. The main driving force behind the law was Bush’s White House drug task force and several members of Congress. Federal agencies very, very, rarely solicit or propose legislation like this. And Congress rarely asks for their input.

Ntrails 4y ago
> Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 (passed as part of the patriot act) This change was passed under special anti-terrorist powers? (Not US so possible misunderstood)
- lazide 4y ago
  Not passed using special powers, included the huge ‘everything and the kitchen sink’ law passed to ‘fight terrorism’ after 9/11. https://www.aclu.org/other/myths-and-realities-about-patriot-act https://www.aclu.org/other/myths-and-realities-about-patriot...
- specialist 4y ago
  I found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Methamphetamine_Epidemic_Act_of_2005 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Methamphetamine_Epidemi... It was added as a part of a reauthorization of the original Patriot Act. US Federal policy making and legislation is a bit like calvinball. And for misc reasons, Congress tends to pass large (omnibus) bills, instead of more reasonable units of work. As an outsider looking in, I collect and read stuff about "the sausage factory". Here's one study that looks past the folk theories, to illuminate how some example laws came to be. Similarly comprehensive books could be written about most all major legislation. SYMPOSIUM: UNORTHODOX LAWMAKING, UNORTHODOX RULEMAKING https://www.columbialawreview.org/content/unorthodox-lawmaking-unorthodox-rulemaking/ https://www.columbialawreview.org/content/unorthodox-lawmaki... "The Schoolhouse Rock! cartoon version of the conventional legislative process is dead, if it was ever an accurate description in the first place. Major policy today is often the product of “unorthodox lawmaking” and “unorthodox rulemaking”—deviations from traditional process marked by frequent use of omnibus bills and multiple agency implementation; emergency statutes and regulations issued without prior comment; outsourcing to lawmaking commissions and unconventional delegates; process shortcuts outside of emergencies; presidential policymaking; and outside drafters, some nonpartisan and others hyperpartisan. These unorthodoxies are everywhere, and they have shifted the balance in the elected branches and beyond, often centralizing power in actors—like party leadership and the White House—not traditionally part of the core lawmaking and rulemaking processes. These unorthodoxies are the new textbook process." BOOK: Unorthodox Lawmaking: New Legislative Processes in the U.S. Congress [2017] https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/unorthodox-lawmaking-5e https://sk.sagepub.com/cqpress/unorthodox-lawmaking-5e

bawolff 4y ago

Why would that make you wonder about their intelligence? FDA having different priorities than you is not the same as them being stupid.

sybercecurity 4y ago
Correct. It's sometimes referred to as "mission blindness": when a bureaucracy (or part of a bureaucracy) is so focused on short-term mission goals to the detriment of everything else. The people taking these actions will continue this path unless the told otherwise.
- phendrenad2 4y ago
  Again, this presupposes that they are prioritizing things in some objective way. Perhaps based on the data they're looking at, it makes sense to do this. And no, "they should ignore that data because it's obviously wrong, according to me" isn't valid.
dsfyu404ed 4y ago
Results matter. I don't care if you're doing a bad job because you're evil or because you're stupid or because you're staffed with a bunch of people who are mostly apathetic and the few who aren't and are driving policy are tunnel vision extremists with mission goals that do not line up well with the public (a frequent situation for these kinds of organizations). Stop doing a bad job.
chris_wot 4y ago
Because they are clearly making objectively stupid decisions.

google234123 4y ago

pseudoephedrine is amazing, I just recently found it and unlike every other cold medicine I've ever tried it actually works and clears my nose.

specto 4y ago
It is, but it's also one of those drugs cardiologists refuse to take themselves
- bdavisx 4y ago
  Why?
  - hammyhavoc 4y ago
    Narrows the blood vessels in your entire body, not just your nose.

jolux 4y ago

Pharma companies decided to sell a drug that doesn’t work so they wouldn’t lose sales from pseudoephedrine going behind the counter. They could have simply chosen not to, alas. Also, that switch was required by law. It wasn’t at FDA’s discretion.