5 ms·

So, if the concern isn't that I'm trafficking, then why am I being told no? Isn't this the logic the government used to assert this right for itself in the

So, if the concern isn't that I'm trafficking, then why am I being told no? Isn't this the logic the government used to assert this right for itself in the first place? Otherwise, what right is it of the government to enact this rate limit? What interest are they protecting? How is the rate limit decided? What can I do if I disagree with the rate limit? Why is a private business being burdened with the governments agenda here? I get where you're coming from, it _is_ a /small/ thing, but the implications immediately become onerous if you think about their meaning inside of a "free" country.

tptacek 3y ago
You're not being told "no". You can just go buy some Sudafed right now if you want to. It's not like there's an application process. There is a rate limit; that's it.
- akira2501 3y ago
  In order for a rate limit to be effective, at some point it has to apply, and at that point, I'm told "no." More concretely, in order to implement a rate limit, you have to sign an electronic log book, and the government can view that log book whenever it likes, without any sort of review or auditing, of course. This isn't the primary concern anyways, the point was, in order to implement this seemingly simple action, many liberties have to be sacrificed and the boundary between innocent and criminal and government and private business become significantly marred. Perhaps those sacrifices are immaterial to most lives and could be ignored without consequence, but the originalist in me says this is folly, and as I've shown it's easy to think of the dangers that some innocent people might endure as a result. Worse, comparing these dangers to the outcomes of the system itself, the whole endeavor seems to have negative value. Finally, as we've seen in history many times, now that this electronic logbook exists, it's use will naturally continue to expand until the government has secured for itself the right to view nearly every single "questionable" purchase you make at a pharmacy. It's an entirely unaccountable act from the government. I'm not sure why anyone would expend effort minimizing it.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    The only liberty being sacrificed here is showing an ID at a pharmacy counter to get Sudafed. I'll stipulate that's a liberty being sacrificed, but it isn't "many". This particular "logbook" has existed for almost 2 decades now, and its scope hasn't creeped from there, so your second argument is pretty easy to shoot down. I think the evidence pretty strongly suggests that this policy, which was put in place to create a rate limit on the purchase of a chemical that isn't so much a precursor to methamphetamine as it is a slightly tweaked version of methamphetamine, is in fact simply used to create a rate limit.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > The only liberty being sacrificed here is showing an ID at a pharmacy counter to get Sudafed. It would be interesting to know if the people concerned about the need to show an ID to vote share that concern about the need to show an ID for access to medicine. > This particular "logbook" has existed for almost 2 decades now, and its scope hasn't creeped from there, so your second argument is pretty easy to shoot down. The policy has proved ineffective at curtailing the availability of methamphetamine while inconveniencing honest people. That's not something the public is clamoring for more of. But it never really was. It came about to begin with as part of the Patriot Act. The lack of expansion is unsurprising given the lack of any 9/11-style crisis to use as an excuse in the intervening two decades. The test is when the next one comes. One of the failings of the existing style of government is that the "passage by both houses of Congress and signed by the President" system used to pass legislation is the same system required to repeal it, which rightfully makes it harder to pass bad laws, but wrongfully makes it harder to repeal them. And then they get passed during a crisis and inconveniently stick.
      - tptacek 3y ago
        You already need to show ID for most medicine! This is such a weird discussion.
        lazide 3y ago
- phil21 3y ago
  > You're not being told "no". You can just go buy some Sudafed right now if you want to. You effectively are in many cases, just as predicted by most when these laws were put into place. First, it became far less of a relatively benign "after the fact" logbook as it was when first implemented. It is now networked and real-time. Many chain stores implement their own interpretation of what they feel a rate limit should be. This tends to err drastically on the side of conservative, and might look back much further than you assume. Second, it's added risk - many independents simply don't want to bother with such a risk, and thus don't bother stocking it. It also adds handling costs. And third and most importantly - it completely and irrevocably ruined the supply chain. It is now legitimately difficult to find it in stock reliably - and if you run out of it at 2am, it's no longer just a minor inconvenience to run to literally any convenience store. Most stores simply no longer carry it, and only a handful of 24 hour pharmacy options exist compared to 20 years ago. Those pharmacies also have consistent supply issues, so you better not have strong brand or dosing preference. Prices went up, and availability plummeted. It's out of stock roughly a third of the time I've needed to go run out to get some, and is no longer just an afterthought item to stock up on at Costco. Typically you're settling on buying the smallest boxes they make since all other sizes are out of stock, and paying even more per dose. And it absolutely is a slippery slope. Loperamide has now met the same fate in many states, and has become multiples of the expense it used to be and a very much pain in the butt to get. No more qty 120 bottles from Costco at 2 cents a pill - entire market killed because people got used to this new norm. It's just one more chip away at the American quality of life. Not a huge one, but one that adds expense and friction for what amounts to a questionable amount of gain. Edit: That is all to say - it's far more than "just a rate limit". Ruining the OTC market for cold medication might be worth it, but that's more or less what happened here. It wasn't like the top 5% of buyers got scraped off the top and sent to jail and everyone else carried on per usual. The cold aisle of your local supermarket took a giant step backwards from 20 years ago in price, availability, convenience, and effectiveness. That was the cost of these creeping regulations. Some may even say the chilling effect was the entire point.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

tptacek 3y ago

You're not being told "no". You can just go buy some Sudafed right now if you want to. It's not like there's an application process. There is a rate limit; that's it.

akira2501 3y ago
In order for a rate limit to be effective, at some point it has to apply, and at that point, I'm told "no." More concretely, in order to implement a rate limit, you have to sign an electronic log book, and the government can view that log book whenever it likes, without any sort of review or auditing, of course. This isn't the primary concern anyways, the point was, in order to implement this seemingly simple action, many liberties have to be sacrificed and the boundary between innocent and criminal and government and private business become significantly marred. Perhaps those sacrifices are immaterial to most lives and could be ignored without consequence, but the originalist in me says this is folly, and as I've shown it's easy to think of the dangers that some innocent people might endure as a result. Worse, comparing these dangers to the outcomes of the system itself, the whole endeavor seems to have negative value. Finally, as we've seen in history many times, now that this electronic logbook exists, it's use will naturally continue to expand until the government has secured for itself the right to view nearly every single "questionable" purchase you make at a pharmacy. It's an entirely unaccountable act from the government. I'm not sure why anyone would expend effort minimizing it.
- tptacek 3y ago
  The only liberty being sacrificed here is showing an ID at a pharmacy counter to get Sudafed. I'll stipulate that's a liberty being sacrificed, but it isn't "many". This particular "logbook" has existed for almost 2 decades now, and its scope hasn't creeped from there, so your second argument is pretty easy to shoot down. I think the evidence pretty strongly suggests that this policy, which was put in place to create a rate limit on the purchase of a chemical that isn't so much a precursor to methamphetamine as it is a slightly tweaked version of methamphetamine, is in fact simply used to create a rate limit.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > The only liberty being sacrificed here is showing an ID at a pharmacy counter to get Sudafed. It would be interesting to know if the people concerned about the need to show an ID to vote share that concern about the need to show an ID for access to medicine. > This particular "logbook" has existed for almost 2 decades now, and its scope hasn't creeped from there, so your second argument is pretty easy to shoot down. The policy has proved ineffective at curtailing the availability of methamphetamine while inconveniencing honest people. That's not something the public is clamoring for more of. But it never really was. It came about to begin with as part of the Patriot Act. The lack of expansion is unsurprising given the lack of any 9/11-style crisis to use as an excuse in the intervening two decades. The test is when the next one comes. One of the failings of the existing style of government is that the "passage by both houses of Congress and signed by the President" system used to pass legislation is the same system required to repeal it, which rightfully makes it harder to pass bad laws, but wrongfully makes it harder to repeal them. And then they get passed during a crisis and inconveniently stick.
    - tptacek 3y ago
      You already need to show ID for most medicine! This is such a weird discussion.
      - lazide 3y ago
phil21 3y ago
> You're not being told "no". You can just go buy some Sudafed right now if you want to. You effectively are in many cases, just as predicted by most when these laws were put into place. First, it became far less of a relatively benign "after the fact" logbook as it was when first implemented. It is now networked and real-time. Many chain stores implement their own interpretation of what they feel a rate limit should be. This tends to err drastically on the side of conservative, and might look back much further than you assume. Second, it's added risk - many independents simply don't want to bother with such a risk, and thus don't bother stocking it. It also adds handling costs. And third and most importantly - it completely and irrevocably ruined the supply chain. It is now legitimately difficult to find it in stock reliably - and if you run out of it at 2am, it's no longer just a minor inconvenience to run to literally any convenience store. Most stores simply no longer carry it, and only a handful of 24 hour pharmacy options exist compared to 20 years ago. Those pharmacies also have consistent supply issues, so you better not have strong brand or dosing preference. Prices went up, and availability plummeted. It's out of stock roughly a third of the time I've needed to go run out to get some, and is no longer just an afterthought item to stock up on at Costco. Typically you're settling on buying the smallest boxes they make since all other sizes are out of stock, and paying even more per dose. And it absolutely is a slippery slope. Loperamide has now met the same fate in many states, and has become multiples of the expense it used to be and a very much pain in the butt to get. No more qty 120 bottles from Costco at 2 cents a pill - entire market killed because people got used to this new norm. It's just one more chip away at the American quality of life. Not a huge one, but one that adds expense and friction for what amounts to a questionable amount of gain. Edit: That is all to say - it's far more than "just a rate limit". Ruining the OTC market for cold medication might be worth it, but that's more or less what happened here. It wasn't like the top 5% of buyers got scraped off the top and sent to jail and everyone else carried on per usual. The cold aisle of your local supermarket took a giant step backwards from 20 years ago in price, availability, convenience, and effectiveness. That was the cost of these creeping regulations. Some may even say the chilling effect was the entire point.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]