> So IMHO this restriction is an attempt at limiting the stock people have at home Correct. But this isn't a bad thing - it means people are less likely to hav

> So IMHO this restriction is an attempt at limiting the stock people have at home Correct. But this isn't a bad thing - it means people are less likely to have a large supply of dangerous pills at hand if they get a sudden urge to kill themselves or attempt a cry for help during a depressive episode. > Although I would argue this is none of the shop's business In practical terms it appears that this actually does reduce suicides and poisonings; it's a significant reduction in suffering in the world. The cost is a very small and temporary limitation on personal convenience. It's surely worth it. See also seatbelt laws. > and, as far as I can gather, this is not a legal restriction. It is in some countries, but the legal obligation is on the vendor, not the individual. If you are confident that you do need a larger cache of tablets then you can do that yourself with only minimal extra inconvenience. I think it's an elegant solution. Suicides are reduced, but the state doesn't overrule individual decision making on what their needs are.