6 ms·

It was a real win/win. Tens of millions of people lost access to an effective drug in order to penalize maybe a few thousand that were using it as a precursor t

It was a real win/win. Tens of millions of people lost access to an effective drug in order to penalize maybe a few thousand that were using it as a precursor to making mamp. But, hey, we beat street meth, right?

CrazyStat 2y ago
> Tens of millions of people lost access This is a bit hyperbolic. You just have to ask for it at the counter and show ID.
- ibejoeb 2y ago
  Only certain documents are accepted: photo documents issued by a US state and certain federal documents. There are some exceptions in the initial act text, but in practice, nobody is going to accept your nursery school record. There are certainly 10s of millions of people who don't have direct access to this drug.
  - phaedrus441 2y ago
    You honestly think there are 10s of millions of people wanting a decongestant in the United States without ID? This is ridiculous and I agree with the other commenter, a bit hyperbolic.
    - ibejoeb 2y ago
      I honestly think it's on that order, yes. Anyone who has had a respiratory infection, a sinus headache, or seasonal allergies. Anyone who would take NyQuil. Over the course of 18 years. Why is that so hard to believe? In fact, now that I think about it more, it's probably a lot more.
    - efitz 2y ago
      No, but why the hell should someone else’s misbehavior cost me time and inconvenience? The cost of these regulations is millions, perhaps billions of dollars in extra effort, bookkeeping and security by tens of thousands of businesses, not to mention lost productivity and frustration on the part of everyone else evolved, and moats of the costs and inconvenience is borne by people outside the government, who are not committing a crime. It’s bat shit crazy that bureaucrats are allowed to steal this much productivity from the economy.
    - iterance 2y ago
      26 million Americans lack valid government-issued IDs, and of this 26m, minority groups comprise the vast majority. https://bluenotary.us/how-many-american-citizens-don-t-have-id/ https://bluenotary.us/how-many-american-citizens-don-t-have-...
      - phaedrus441 2y ago
        Wow I was surprised by this figure, so I tried to find the source everyone quotes. It appears to be a 2006 telephone survey of 987 randomly-selected voting age citizens that were then weighted for an underrepresentation of race (so perhaps not that accurate). Anecdotally, I work in a safety net hospital and it is really rare for someone to come in without ID, which is why those numbers seemed so surprising to me... https://www.brennancenter.org/media/6697/download https://www.brennancenter.org/media/6697/download I could easily have missed a better or more recent study, so if anyone has one please post it!
      - 1propionyl 2y ago
        The answer here is to make getting a government issued ID a straightforward matter and a national priority. I cannot think of another significant country that hasn't had this figured out for decades.
        jujube3 2y ago
        Pretending that government IDs are super duper hard to give out is a time-honored American tradition. After all, imagine if the government had a database with every person's name in it! You'd have like 300 million rows? Nobody's built a computing machine that could do that. And then how would you get the cards to people? You'd have to send out horses and buggies to every corner of the nation. And where would you find enough coachmen to do that, and roads to drive the coaches on??? No, clearly it's unpossible. So we have to reserve the use of government IDs for really important things, like checking if you can buy cold medicine, and voting must remain insecure.
        tempfile 2y ago
    - reaperman 2y ago
      Yes - I often lose my wallet/ID and I don’t think I’m in in the 0.1%ile. Even if 1% are like me, thats 30 million Americans.
    - jalapenos 2y ago
      I think these basic facts should be taught in school. Yes, millions don't have ID. It seems trite to someone in the middle class, but it genuinely is not a priority to certain demographics, given the challenge of getting it. That challenge may seem trivial to a frequenter of Hacker News, but we're a diverse society. The only barrier to getting a decongestant should be: having the money to pay for it.
  - efitz 2y ago
    And if they require a drivers license but their system is based on an electronic reader and that reader is broken, then you are out of luck. No sudafed for you.
    - ibejoeb 2y ago
      Pretty sure I've even commented here before about this, but I was refused at an LA Walgreens pharmacy when I presented both a NY ID and a US passport. Would only accept CA ID.
- rconti 2y ago
  Is that true? I honestly don't know. I thought it went away entirely. I guess that's what hiding it behind the counter does to those who aren't in the know.
  - CrazyStat 2y ago
    Yes.
- tomatocracy 2y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if that's actually an underestimate, because this saga has had a knock on effect on decongestant formulations sold outside the US as well. I don't know exactly why this has happened but my guess is it may be due to economies of scale in manufacturing or licencing overheads. It's hard to find a pharmacy which even sells pseudoephedrine based decongestant if you're in the UK, for example.
  - agurk 2y ago
    Boots (a large UK pharmacy chain) sells it, but it's "behind the counter" so you have to ask for it. They will also only sell you one pack of 12 per visit It's the same for codeine-mixed products. Recently I got denied a simultaneous purchase of pseudoephedrine and ibuprofen/codeine - I was I was only allowed one. I'm not sure if it's policy, law or I just looked suspicious.
    - tomatocracy 2y ago
      Thanks. Looks like the buying limits are a legal requirement: https://www.gov.uk/drug-safety-update/pseudoephedrine-and-ephedrine-nasal-decongestants https://www.gov.uk/drug-safety-update/pseudoephedrine-and-ep... ) Seems like it was also classified as Pharmacy only (behind the counter) or prescription instead of just OTC.
cruffle_duffle 2y ago
> But, hey, we beat street meth, right? It’s all fentanyl now so in a weird way, maybe?
- swores 2y ago
  No. Fentanyl has become a huge thing in illegal opiates (either used instead of drugs like heroin, or mixed in with heroin to make it seem stronger though more dangerous). But, while there have been some instances of accidental fentanyl poisoning from use of other classes of drug (eg if a careless dealer/distributor is mixing fentanyl into heroin and doesn't clean the surface before moving on to weigh out bags of cocaine, or whatever) absolutely nobody is choosing to use fentanyl as a replacement for stimulants like meth (which is the drug being discussed above) or cocaine. They're complete opposites. Of course, there are also trends over years/decades as drugs become more or less popular, either as part of societal trends (eg Ketamine in the UK, having spent a decade or two being forgotten about by the majority of recreational drug users, has apparently made a comeback and is very big in the party scene now especially among younger people), or because of the reasons people take drugs (eg the more people going to nightclubs/raves, the more people will use drugs like cocaine and MDMA; while more people getting depressed and not going out will lead to more people using drugs like opiates, eg heroin/fentanyl, to take away their mental pain - and some drugs, like Ketamine, are actually popular for both those examples, it's a popular party drug and it's often used alone by people wanting to bury their feelings). So it's possible that the state or the world has led to more people choosing opiates than stimulants, and in the US fentanyl is all over the illegal supply of opiates. But I'm not aware of any logic that would say the increase in fentanyl has or would lead to meth users making the switch. Side note that I think worth mentioning considering the topic: by FAR the most dangerous aspect of using these illegal drugs is the fact that they are illegal, not the fact that they are drugs. The majority of fentanyl users in the US are either trying to buy heroin but being sold fentanyl (or heroin+fentanyl mixes), and the majority of people actively choosing to use fentanyl illegally are doing it not because it's a nicer drug to use than heroin, but because the supply chain logistics lead to it being significantly cheaper (which is also why it's dangerously used by dealers to make their heroin batches seem stronger). Heroin itself can of course be life ruining, but if taken on its own (not at the same time as other CNS depressants such as alcohol and benzodiazepines) then it's actually extremely unlikely to cause accidental fatal overdoses, and when it does cause overdoses (with or without whatever drugs being involved) it's 90% because the user didn't know how strong it was and expected it to be similar in purity to what they had been using before, and 10% because of lack of harm reduction education about how much to use to be safe, what drugs to avoid mixing it with, etc. (90/10% are just my ballpark guesstimates). Because we spend all the money interesting and locking drug uses up, rather than educating and supporting them in minimising risk while they do use and offering as much support as needed to those ready and wanting to beat their addiction. If illegal drugs were, instead of being criminalised, treated like tobacco - highly taxed (but not so high that more than a few percent of people choose to buy from illegal sources), made by professional companies (more like other pharmaceuticals in this case than like tobacco m), and therefore possible to buy knowing both that the drugs are pure and knowing their precise doses - then the combination of taxes raised and money saved on the law enforcement side (everything from policing to court costs to prisons) could both fund huge amounts of mental health & addiction treatment and support options, not just for existing drug users but also as a preventative measure to reduce the number of people turning to drugs due to problems in their life or in their mind, AND leave a huge amount more money to be spent in other areas for the good of society. (Sorry for the long sentences, I'm too lazy to properly edit my comment right now).

CrazyStat 2y ago

> Tens of millions of people lost access This is a bit hyperbolic. You just have to ask for it at the counter and show ID.

ibejoeb 2y ago
Only certain documents are accepted: photo documents issued by a US state and certain federal documents. There are some exceptions in the initial act text, but in practice, nobody is going to accept your nursery school record. There are certainly 10s of millions of people who don't have direct access to this drug.
- phaedrus441 2y ago
  You honestly think there are 10s of millions of people wanting a decongestant in the United States without ID? This is ridiculous and I agree with the other commenter, a bit hyperbolic.
  - ibejoeb 2y ago
    I honestly think it's on that order, yes. Anyone who has had a respiratory infection, a sinus headache, or seasonal allergies. Anyone who would take NyQuil. Over the course of 18 years. Why is that so hard to believe? In fact, now that I think about it more, it's probably a lot more.
  - efitz 2y ago
    No, but why the hell should someone else’s misbehavior cost me time and inconvenience? The cost of these regulations is millions, perhaps billions of dollars in extra effort, bookkeeping and security by tens of thousands of businesses, not to mention lost productivity and frustration on the part of everyone else evolved, and moats of the costs and inconvenience is borne by people outside the government, who are not committing a crime. It’s bat shit crazy that bureaucrats are allowed to steal this much productivity from the economy.
  - iterance 2y ago
    26 million Americans lack valid government-issued IDs, and of this 26m, minority groups comprise the vast majority. https://bluenotary.us/how-many-american-citizens-don-t-have-id/ https://bluenotary.us/how-many-american-citizens-don-t-have-...
    - phaedrus441 2y ago
      Wow I was surprised by this figure, so I tried to find the source everyone quotes. It appears to be a 2006 telephone survey of 987 randomly-selected voting age citizens that were then weighted for an underrepresentation of race (so perhaps not that accurate). Anecdotally, I work in a safety net hospital and it is really rare for someone to come in without ID, which is why those numbers seemed so surprising to me... https://www.brennancenter.org/media/6697/download https://www.brennancenter.org/media/6697/download I could easily have missed a better or more recent study, so if anyone has one please post it!
    - 1propionyl 2y ago
      The answer here is to make getting a government issued ID a straightforward matter and a national priority. I cannot think of another significant country that hasn't had this figured out for decades.
      - jujube3 2y ago
        Pretending that government IDs are super duper hard to give out is a time-honored American tradition. After all, imagine if the government had a database with every person's name in it! You'd have like 300 million rows? Nobody's built a computing machine that could do that. And then how would you get the cards to people? You'd have to send out horses and buggies to every corner of the nation. And where would you find enough coachmen to do that, and roads to drive the coaches on??? No, clearly it's unpossible. So we have to reserve the use of government IDs for really important things, like checking if you can buy cold medicine, and voting must remain insecure.
        tempfile 2y ago
  - reaperman 2y ago
    Yes - I often lose my wallet/ID and I don’t think I’m in in the 0.1%ile. Even if 1% are like me, thats 30 million Americans.
  - jalapenos 2y ago
    I think these basic facts should be taught in school. Yes, millions don't have ID. It seems trite to someone in the middle class, but it genuinely is not a priority to certain demographics, given the challenge of getting it. That challenge may seem trivial to a frequenter of Hacker News, but we're a diverse society. The only barrier to getting a decongestant should be: having the money to pay for it.
- efitz 2y ago
  And if they require a drivers license but their system is based on an electronic reader and that reader is broken, then you are out of luck. No sudafed for you.
  - ibejoeb 2y ago
    Pretty sure I've even commented here before about this, but I was refused at an LA Walgreens pharmacy when I presented both a NY ID and a US passport. Would only accept CA ID.
rconti 2y ago
Is that true? I honestly don't know. I thought it went away entirely. I guess that's what hiding it behind the counter does to those who aren't in the know.
- CrazyStat 2y ago
  Yes.
tomatocracy 2y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if that's actually an underestimate, because this saga has had a knock on effect on decongestant formulations sold outside the US as well. I don't know exactly why this has happened but my guess is it may be due to economies of scale in manufacturing or licencing overheads. It's hard to find a pharmacy which even sells pseudoephedrine based decongestant if you're in the UK, for example.
- agurk 2y ago
  Boots (a large UK pharmacy chain) sells it, but it's "behind the counter" so you have to ask for it. They will also only sell you one pack of 12 per visit It's the same for codeine-mixed products. Recently I got denied a simultaneous purchase of pseudoephedrine and ibuprofen/codeine - I was I was only allowed one. I'm not sure if it's policy, law or I just looked suspicious.
  - tomatocracy 2y ago
    Thanks. Looks like the buying limits are a legal requirement: https://www.gov.uk/drug-safety-update/pseudoephedrine-and-ephedrine-nasal-decongestants https://www.gov.uk/drug-safety-update/pseudoephedrine-and-ep... ) Seems like it was also classified as Pharmacy only (behind the counter) or prescription instead of just OTC.

cruffle_duffle 2y ago

> But, hey, we beat street meth, right? It’s all fentanyl now so in a weird way, maybe?

swores 2y ago
No. Fentanyl has become a huge thing in illegal opiates (either used instead of drugs like heroin, or mixed in with heroin to make it seem stronger though more dangerous). But, while there have been some instances of accidental fentanyl poisoning from use of other classes of drug (eg if a careless dealer/distributor is mixing fentanyl into heroin and doesn't clean the surface before moving on to weigh out bags of cocaine, or whatever) absolutely nobody is choosing to use fentanyl as a replacement for stimulants like meth (which is the drug being discussed above) or cocaine. They're complete opposites. Of course, there are also trends over years/decades as drugs become more or less popular, either as part of societal trends (eg Ketamine in the UK, having spent a decade or two being forgotten about by the majority of recreational drug users, has apparently made a comeback and is very big in the party scene now especially among younger people), or because of the reasons people take drugs (eg the more people going to nightclubs/raves, the more people will use drugs like cocaine and MDMA; while more people getting depressed and not going out will lead to more people using drugs like opiates, eg heroin/fentanyl, to take away their mental pain - and some drugs, like Ketamine, are actually popular for both those examples, it's a popular party drug and it's often used alone by people wanting to bury their feelings). So it's possible that the state or the world has led to more people choosing opiates than stimulants, and in the US fentanyl is all over the illegal supply of opiates. But I'm not aware of any logic that would say the increase in fentanyl has or would lead to meth users making the switch. Side note that I think worth mentioning considering the topic: by FAR the most dangerous aspect of using these illegal drugs is the fact that they are illegal, not the fact that they are drugs. The majority of fentanyl users in the US are either trying to buy heroin but being sold fentanyl (or heroin+fentanyl mixes), and the majority of people actively choosing to use fentanyl illegally are doing it not because it's a nicer drug to use than heroin, but because the supply chain logistics lead to it being significantly cheaper (which is also why it's dangerously used by dealers to make their heroin batches seem stronger). Heroin itself can of course be life ruining, but if taken on its own (not at the same time as other CNS depressants such as alcohol and benzodiazepines) then it's actually extremely unlikely to cause accidental fatal overdoses, and when it does cause overdoses (with or without whatever drugs being involved) it's 90% because the user didn't know how strong it was and expected it to be similar in purity to what they had been using before, and 10% because of lack of harm reduction education about how much to use to be safe, what drugs to avoid mixing it with, etc. (90/10% are just my ballpark guesstimates). Because we spend all the money interesting and locking drug uses up, rather than educating and supporting them in minimising risk while they do use and offering as much support as needed to those ready and wanting to beat their addiction. If illegal drugs were, instead of being criminalised, treated like tobacco - highly taxed (but not so high that more than a few percent of people choose to buy from illegal sources), made by professional companies (more like other pharmaceuticals in this case than like tobacco m), and therefore possible to buy knowing both that the drugs are pure and knowing their precise doses - then the combination of taxes raised and money saved on the law enforcement side (everything from policing to court costs to prisons) could both fund huge amounts of mental health & addiction treatment and support options, not just for existing drug users but also as a preventative measure to reduce the number of people turning to drugs due to problems in their life or in their mind, AND leave a huge amount more money to be spent in other areas for the good of society. (Sorry for the long sentences, I'm too lazy to properly edit my comment right now).