It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


You need a perscription for Sudafed in Oregon (moved from ATSNN)

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 02:24 PM
An innovated Bill in Oregon will soon become law. The bill which has just been approved will require everyone to have a perscription for previously OTC drugs such as Sudafed, and Clartin-D. Gov. Ted Kulongoski signed the bill into law today.
One of the ingredient of these medications is pseudoephedrine which is a main ingredient for methamphetamine. By removing these drugs from the over-the-counter access it will make it difficult for Meth Labs to continue to pump out their illegal product.
Gov. Ted Kulongoski on Tuesday signed legislation that will make Oregon the first state to require prescriptions for cold and allergy medications that can be converted into methamphetamine.
Kulongoski said he was aware of inconveniences that might arise from having to get prescriptions for commonly purchased remedies but said pharmaceutical companies already are producing replacement remedies that don't contain pseudophedrine.
The bill sailed though both houses of the Legislature, opposed by only a handful of lawmakers who said it would be an inconvenience to their constituents to need prescriptions for such common drugs as Sudafed and the Claritin D. Schering-Plough Corp., based in Kenilworth, N.J., makes Claritin-D and five other over-the-counter drugs that contain pseudoephedrine. New York-based Pfizer Inc. makes Sudafed and other medicines with pseudoephedrine

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

I am totally behind this bill and would hope that it is adopted by other states. Anything to curtail the drug trade and the damage that it does to our children I will support.
The only problem that I have with the bill is that it does not seem to have a way for those who do not have insurance and thus cannot afford a visit to the doctor for a perscription, to get the medicines. Yes they will be able to get other non-pseudoephedrine medicines, but speaking from experience, those drugs are not strong enough for the flu and the common cold. I can take these drugs all day and it will not affect me or the severity of the cold / flu.
Another problem also comes to mind that stems from the shortages of flu vaccine that last 2 years. How are these people going to combat the affects if they come down with the flu? What will such do to the local economy due to people having to stay home longer due to the flu / cold?

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 02:41 PM
This law isn't going to last long. Wait untill the state starts getting the bills from people on Welfare who have to see a doctor to get a prescription every time they get hay fever or a runny nose. Between that and the medical insurance companies screaming bloody murder about the increased costs of more office visits. This is just a "Hey look at us we are doing something!!" type of law.


posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 02:44 PM
The "Drug War" should be ended. All drugs should be taken from behind counter and made available without a prescription. As an adult I should be able to put whatever I like into my body without the approval of government at any level and without a note from a doctor. I freaking resent "the children" being paraded in front of me by some whiner as a justification to take more of our rights away.

Try personal responsibility for a change instead of more government.


posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 02:49 PM
I agree that there is a need to address the problem of Meth manufacture.....but this type of legislation is over kill. They could just as easily reduce the number of Sudafed that could be bought at one time as an over the counter med.

I would expect the company that manufactures Sudafed will have some thing to say about this approach, as most who cannot afford to see a doctor will opt to buy some other product. ( This would include me....a hundred bucks plus the cost of way!)

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 02:56 PM
That's pretty much how it is in most places; you're just restricted to how much you can buy at one time.

In North Dakota, most places now actually request ID to prove you're over 18 (cos we know how much of a threat those 12 year old methmeisters are
), and have a limit on 2 boxes or 2 bottles of pseudoephedrine-based meds.

Which, I'm sorry, is quite quite ridiculous.

To restrict an entire family of drugs because a tiny minority will use it for meth manufacture is just assinine.

Besides. Places like will still let you buy in silly amounts. It's not going to make obtaining the substance for that reason that much harder; it's just going to make it harder for folk who actually need it and prefer to buy in bulk for price reasons or whatever.


[edit on 16-8-2005 by Tinkleflower]

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 03:41 PM
This is ridiculous! I think it is a great drug to relieve stuffy noses and congestion associated with most illnesses and should be availible for those who need it without the cost(at least $100) to see a doctor and then get a prescription filled(it will likely cost more as a prescriptiondrug). I agree 1000000000% that something needs to be done to curve meth production but this is too much.

I have an outlandish idea on how to slow drug use, especially meth and coc aine, the government can flood the drug market with coc aine and meth that is mixed with rat poison or something else that will cause an extreme amount of damage to the user. Before long the druggies will be messed up. Yes it is cruel but the US is suppose to have a 'war on drugs' and tactical measures need to be taken.

[edit on 16-8-2005 by jrod]

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 03:55 PM

By removing these drugs from the over-the-counter access it will make it difficult for Meth Labs to continue to pump out their illegal product.

Hardly. They'd just get some cases in Wa or Id, Nv, Ca, etc. No biggie. And if adopted by those states, then Canada.

This is ridiculous, punishing the millions of allergy sufferers to fight a rather (statistically) rarely used drug? I don't see this one lasting very long....not long at all. You'd want some elderly woman with allergies to pay $20 for a doctor copay and then $10 for a prescription co-pay for something she used to get OTC for $6? All just to fight some druggies who'll simply find something else to get high on? What's next, banning whipped cream cans in grocery stores? Or aresol can products? Personally, if they want to kill themselves, more power to them, that's Darwinism at its finest.... Don't make it affect my wallet though.....

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 03:57 PM
Meth abuse is a big American problem for sure, but the only way to fix it is education and support for users who want to break free.

Of course, BigPharma is always happy to have more people under their authority/approval, so this will make some people very happy. Stopping the ingredients of Meth will not stop the manufacture of it. People who want meth wil find ways to make it.

The biggest problem the elites have with the Meth problem is that it's home-grown and they aren't profiting from it like they do with other illegal drugs. Most of these lawmakers don't give a rat's ass about the users who suffer.

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 04:16 PM
I did bring those points up. They are all good points but like I said, the article does not address the issue on how take of those without insurance. I also mentioned that it would be nice if something similar was passed in the other states. As for the availability of these OTC drugs from the internet or from Canada / Mexico, well not much can be done unless you look at the latest news were the "King of POT" a Canadian wh has been selling Marijuana over the internet to countries around the world. He is looking at being extrdited to the US for distributing drugs. So if there is a precedent set with him then it maybe expanded to cover Sudafed etc. It all depends on how much people want to put a stop the Meth labs and what judge is interpeting the laws.

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 04:17 PM
The biggest problem with meth is it's addicts dont care, they will do anything for meth and they are responisible for so much other crimes to get money. Cocaine is the same way for a lot of people. I suppose some are just weak and cannot control themselves, and I feel strongly that they need to be wiped out. Drugs laced with deadly poisons is reasonable, its not like the government hasnt sprayed toxic chemicals on overseas marijuana and Coca crops before, my idea seems much more reasonable. Meth addicts are a lost cause in most cases.

[edit on 16-8-2005 by jrod]

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 04:25 PM

I feel strongly that they need to be wiped out.

Yeah, wiped out. Really compassionate there, jrod.

Obviously you've never been young or weak or otherwise in a situation that can lead to addiction. Life is difficult from some people right from the get-go. Not everyone has parents who love them or a college fund, etc.

Speed/meth/crystal is possible to beat, so long as you have support and if you have hope. I know great humans who have done this.

Here's hoping your life turns to utter crap so you can learn empathy.

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 04:33 PM
You have no idea what I've been through.

Drug addicts are a nussiance to society. We have too many people in this world, let alone this country to waste time and money trying to help those who refuse to help themselves.

It is not fair for a working class person whose house gets broken into and prized possesions taken so some looser can support his drug habit. Everyone deserves a chance but doing an illicit drug like meth is someones personal choice. Everyone is responsible for their own decisions and there are many many drug rehab facilities who are willing to help anyone in need.

I think being too compasionant to soulless drug addicts is one of our biggest problem, for every recovered addict there are a hundred more who won't think twice about killing you for their next hit.

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 06:49 PM

You have no idea what I've been through.

Why state the obvious?

Drug addicts are a nussiance to society. We have too many people in this world, let alone this country to waste time and money trying to help those who refuse to help themselves.


I think being too compasionant to soulless drug addicts is one of our biggest problem, for every recovered addict there are a hundred more who won't think twice about killing you for their next hit.

Oh so now it's "being too compassionate", rather than "wipe them out"?

You're right, jrod, I don't know what you've been through. I am certain addiciton has little to do with your history otherwise you'd speak a little softer and not suggest execution for meth users. If you're saying your life has been hard, then cut some slack to the unknown guy who's life is also hard, for reasons unbeknownst to you.

Would you, I wonder, be willing to take a rifle and operate a firing squad against a few thousand meth users? You'd look them in the eyes and shoot them due to your worldview? How 'bout if it was your daughter or son on meth. What then? Are they worthless due to their addiction?

Meth is tacitly advertised (by evil people) to young people as a fun drug that keeps you thin. When kids or teenagers get addicted to it, they didn't intend to get addicted. You know this right? Nobody who's addicted to meth said, "Man, I'm determined to become an addict!" ...No, they just get hooked.

There's another drug out there which ruins life and which is addictive and which is not so regulated as sudafed and which requires ZERO processing or espionage. It's called alcohol and you don't need a prescription for it. What is your opinion of booze addicts? Are they easier to reform? Because I've met some people who will tell you that booze is just as sticky as meth, when it comes to addiction.

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 07:45 PM
Here in Oklahoma, meth was a huge problem until we passed a similar bill. In just a year the number of meth labs have gone down 90%. It's still a problem but it is being brought in from other states that haven't passed a law like this.

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 07:49 PM
This is not an innovative law as far as Oregon is concerned. The pilot law of what is now being taken up by a lot of states and is being considered on a federal level was initiated in Oklahoma. The Trooper Nik Green Law. It has been reported on several times here at ATSNN.

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 08:10 PM
I've never said my life has been hard. Being an American citizen I know I got it made. With some better choices I know I can be much better off however.

I have nothing against anyone who uses drugs, meth included; Not too long ago it was a popular prescribed drug, even past presidents and other big figures have been known to use it. My problem is with the people who resort to robbing others to support their drug habit. It also is a damn shame that someone can make a meth lab and make much more money than your average hardworking person. Their is now a population of young people my age whose lifestyle is based on selling drugs and stealing from anyone who gives them half a chance and something needs to be done about it, illicit drugs laced with say rat poison seems quite reasonable to me.

I have seen too many people throw their life away because of drugs, and meth is probaly the worst of them and I know how older users push the drugs on younger more vulnerable people and with traditional family values going out the window I can only forsee more at risk. Also I know certain places say a strip club are notorious for illicit drug use and it is obvious that it is promoted to young girls for the reason stated above. Meth is a drug that robs a person of their soul.

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 09:34 PM

Meth is a drug that robs a person of their soul.

No, addicts have souls. It's this kind of attitude that robs them of it.

If you believe in the war against drugs, then yeah, this will be legislation you'll agree with. I've got friends who are several years clean having been IV meth users in their youth.

All it takes is a little hope.

I think it's good that you mentioned people and their souls. This tells me that the answer is no, you couldn't shoot drug users. I think that's great.

posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 01:43 AM
Sudafed was taken off the shelves in Australia years ago, for precisely the problem stated above.

new topics

top topics


log in